Ratification Package
The School Board voted to ratify our contract on August 2. We will vote at our school sites on August 8. Your site rep should be sending out information about times/locations. The ratification package below is a summary of the changes that have been proposed.
| __ccea_ratification_package__1_.pdf |
Bargaining Update: 6/21/2018
CCEA and the District have tentatively agreed to a contract!
-Increase in the School Board's insurance contribution from $258.49 per pay period to $301.95 per pay period (see our Insurance page for more details)
-Increase from 1 to 2 TDE days for ESE inclusion teachers with 15 or more contact students in order to complete IEP paperwork
-Increase from 1 to 2 planning periods for Junior High Activities Directors
-Job protections for self-contained ESE teachers if their units are moved to new sites
-Decrease from 2 to 1 required formal observations for Annual Contract teachers (not including Probationary Annual Contract teachers)
-Teachers may now request a pre-observation conference with their evaluating administrator to discuss the lesson they will teach during their formal observation
-Increase in the School Board's insurance contribution from $258.49 per pay period to $301.95 per pay period (see our Insurance page for more details)
-Increase from 1 to 2 TDE days for ESE inclusion teachers with 15 or more contact students in order to complete IEP paperwork
-Increase from 1 to 2 planning periods for Junior High Activities Directors
-Job protections for self-contained ESE teachers if their units are moved to new sites
-Decrease from 2 to 1 required formal observations for Annual Contract teachers (not including Probationary Annual Contract teachers)
-Teachers may now request a pre-observation conference with their evaluating administrator to discuss the lesson they will teach during their formal observation
Bargaining Update: 5/10/18
Our bargaining session originally scheduled for May 14 has been canceled. The school board went into executive session on 5/9/18 and did not reach a conclusion about how to respond to our insurance proposal.
Bargaining Update: 5/2/2018
CCEA passed over our insurance proposal. We are asking that the board increase their contribution from $258.49 per pay period to $334 per pay period.
Our next bargaining session has been scheduled for May 14 @ 4:30 p.m. at the TTC.
Our next bargaining session has been scheduled for May 14 @ 4:30 p.m. at the TTC.
Ratification Package: 1/13/2017
The Ratification Package contains all of the proposed changes to the contract. It is also available at all work sites. Voting occurs this Thursday, January 18. See your Lead Rep for details.
If you have questions about the negotiated salary adjustments, please go to the Salaries section of the Get Informed page.
If you have questions about the negotiated salary adjustments, please go to the Salaries section of the Get Informed page.
| 2017_2018_ratification_package_ccea.pdf |
Bargaining Update: 12/13/2017
We have tentatively agreed to a contract! We will vote in mid-January and the School Board will vote at their February meeting. (This is the earliest that this can happen.)
While most of our big wins came at the last session (see 10/25/2017 post below), we reached an agreement tonight to move annual contract teachers to Phase I of the hiring process. This allows them to apply for transfers prior to interviews for brand new hires.
Unfortunately, we remain at status quo on insurance. The Board would not budge. However, because we agreed to a 2-year salary proposal, we can direct more of our focus on insurance next year. We will never stop fighting to have the Board increase their contribution - something they have not done since 2010. We have asked for an increase every year. The Board has agreed to send a contingent of people to Alachua County in January to learn how their self-insured program works.
The full ratification package with all changes will be available at each school site by January 11.
While most of our big wins came at the last session (see 10/25/2017 post below), we reached an agreement tonight to move annual contract teachers to Phase I of the hiring process. This allows them to apply for transfers prior to interviews for brand new hires.
Unfortunately, we remain at status quo on insurance. The Board would not budge. However, because we agreed to a 2-year salary proposal, we can direct more of our focus on insurance next year. We will never stop fighting to have the Board increase their contribution - something they have not done since 2010. We have asked for an increase every year. The Board has agreed to send a contingent of people to Alachua County in January to learn how their self-insured program works.
The full ratification package with all changes will be available at each school site by January 11.
Bargaining Update: 10/25/2017
CCEA and the District have tentatively agreed upon a 2-year salary proposal. The total dollar amount agreed upon was approximately $2.825 million per year. This will be enough to give all PSC and Highly Effective Annual Contract teachers approx. $1,000 per year and Effective Annual Contract teachers approx. $750 per year. (Please read our Get Informed --> Salaries page to see why these amounts have to be different.)
These amounts will be added to your base pay each year - meaning they become a permanent part of your salary. This will be retroactive for the 2017-2018 school year, so you will receive a lump sum upon ratification to cover August-November/December (depends upon our exact ratification date). At that point your base pay for this year will increase and you will notice a regular increase in your paycheck beginning in January. You pay will increase again next year. Whether you get another $750 or $1,000 next year will depend on your final evaluation score for this year.
Other wins:
These amounts will be added to your base pay each year - meaning they become a permanent part of your salary. This will be retroactive for the 2017-2018 school year, so you will receive a lump sum upon ratification to cover August-November/December (depends upon our exact ratification date). At that point your base pay for this year will increase and you will notice a regular increase in your paycheck beginning in January. You pay will increase again next year. Whether you get another $750 or $1,000 next year will depend on your final evaluation score for this year.
Other wins:
- We went from 1 bereavement day to 3 days
- Language that states that planning time during student contact hours shall be teacher-directed
- ESE teachers with 15 or more contact students will get one TDE day per year to complete IEP paperwork
What about insurance???
We have been getting a lot of questions about insurance costs.
The district use to cover 100% of the cost of the single employee HMO. Several years ago, they bargained to get "100%" changed to a dollar amount in the contract. (Please note - this occurred under a previous bargaining team.) At the time, the dollar amount - $258.49 - covered the HMO. The district stated that their intent was to always cover 100%, but they have not increase that amount in 7 years.
We ask the district EVERY YEAR to increase the dollar amount , and every year we are told no. Your bargaining team has no way to force them to increase this amount. From the district's point of view - why would they? Unless we put enough political pressure on the school board to force their hands, our hands are tied.
The district has offered us ~$2,825,000. Some people have asked why we don't put that money towards insurance. The answer is twofold. 1) It would not make a huge difference to your take home pay. We could put $600 out of the $1,000 towards paying down the insurance increase and then distribute the rest of the money as salary adjustments, but I don't know if the district can do that for just the individuals that take our insurance. Would they then give the full $1,000 to people who do not take the insurance or would they only get the same distribution that everyone else got after insurance? Again, I don't think the district can do that or would be willing to do that. Also, it would have implications for our performance pay, which is the law. 2) About 1/3 of our teachers do not use our insurance. If we use all of the money to cover insurance, we would not be bargaining for all of our members.
Ideally we would finish bargaining BEFORE the budget is passed and open enrollment begins. That way teachers will know their insurance rates prior to making a decision. Because the district does not plan their budget around properly taking care of their employees, we end up bargaining into the school year. The district should plan for insurance increases AND for our salary adjustments. Instead, we are thrown one small pot of money and end up fighting over how to split it.
It is true that we passed across an insurance offer and then rescinded it. We made the same proposal that we make every year - that they increase their contribution from $258.49 to whatever amount would cover the single employee HMO. We took it back, but not until AFTER the district had a chance to look at it and do a cost analysis. They came back to the table with a cost estimate but no proposal of their own. We took back our proposal because we realized that they might agree to it and then claim that there was no money left for salaries. This would not be in the best interests of any employee. The total dollar amount that we received in salaries was GREATER than their cost estimate for insurance.
Higher salaries benefit everyone. Having the entire amount put on your base pay increases your FRS average, which will benefit you in retirement. Once you receive a salary adjustment, it cannot be taken away. Your base pay becomes permanently higher.
We would love to come to the bargaining table and see the district make a salary AND insurance offer. Unfortunately, that has not happened in recent years. The school board approves the budget at the beginning of each school year, which dictates how much money is available for salaries and benefits. We understand that people are frustrated. We are too. We invite you to voice those frustrations by e-mailing your school board members or attending and speaking at school board meetings. The only way that dollar amount will ever change is if it is initiated by the school board. Our bargaining team cannot plead our case before the school board while bargaining is in session. Nothing will change unless the hear from YOU.
The district use to cover 100% of the cost of the single employee HMO. Several years ago, they bargained to get "100%" changed to a dollar amount in the contract. (Please note - this occurred under a previous bargaining team.) At the time, the dollar amount - $258.49 - covered the HMO. The district stated that their intent was to always cover 100%, but they have not increase that amount in 7 years.
We ask the district EVERY YEAR to increase the dollar amount , and every year we are told no. Your bargaining team has no way to force them to increase this amount. From the district's point of view - why would they? Unless we put enough political pressure on the school board to force their hands, our hands are tied.
The district has offered us ~$2,825,000. Some people have asked why we don't put that money towards insurance. The answer is twofold. 1) It would not make a huge difference to your take home pay. We could put $600 out of the $1,000 towards paying down the insurance increase and then distribute the rest of the money as salary adjustments, but I don't know if the district can do that for just the individuals that take our insurance. Would they then give the full $1,000 to people who do not take the insurance or would they only get the same distribution that everyone else got after insurance? Again, I don't think the district can do that or would be willing to do that. Also, it would have implications for our performance pay, which is the law. 2) About 1/3 of our teachers do not use our insurance. If we use all of the money to cover insurance, we would not be bargaining for all of our members.
Ideally we would finish bargaining BEFORE the budget is passed and open enrollment begins. That way teachers will know their insurance rates prior to making a decision. Because the district does not plan their budget around properly taking care of their employees, we end up bargaining into the school year. The district should plan for insurance increases AND for our salary adjustments. Instead, we are thrown one small pot of money and end up fighting over how to split it.
It is true that we passed across an insurance offer and then rescinded it. We made the same proposal that we make every year - that they increase their contribution from $258.49 to whatever amount would cover the single employee HMO. We took it back, but not until AFTER the district had a chance to look at it and do a cost analysis. They came back to the table with a cost estimate but no proposal of their own. We took back our proposal because we realized that they might agree to it and then claim that there was no money left for salaries. This would not be in the best interests of any employee. The total dollar amount that we received in salaries was GREATER than their cost estimate for insurance.
Higher salaries benefit everyone. Having the entire amount put on your base pay increases your FRS average, which will benefit you in retirement. Once you receive a salary adjustment, it cannot be taken away. Your base pay becomes permanently higher.
We would love to come to the bargaining table and see the district make a salary AND insurance offer. Unfortunately, that has not happened in recent years. The school board approves the budget at the beginning of each school year, which dictates how much money is available for salaries and benefits. We understand that people are frustrated. We are too. We invite you to voice those frustrations by e-mailing your school board members or attending and speaking at school board meetings. The only way that dollar amount will ever change is if it is initiated by the school board. Our bargaining team cannot plead our case before the school board while bargaining is in session. Nothing will change unless the hear from YOU.
Bonus/Scholarship money from the state
Please go back and read the e-mail sent out by the Superintendent on September 28. It is titled "Best and Brightest Information for ALL teachers". A lot of teachers disregarded this e-mail because they thought that it was just about the main Best & Brightest Program that requires test scores. The state is offering additional bonus money to ALL teachers who are highly effective / effective, no test scores required.
You must apply by DECEMBER 1. (The November 1 deadline has been extended.) You cannot apply until your administrator has signed off on your evaluation (including VAM/local factor) from last year!
Important clarification: The Best and Brightest money ($6,000 for HE/test scores required, $1,200 for HE/no test scores required, up to $800/no test scores required for E) has NOTHING to do with our local bargaining negotiations. It is bonus money from the state. Instead of properly funding school districts, they hope to mollify teachers with bonuses. This money will NOT become a part of your base pay. You have to apply because they state says so. CCEA is bargaining with the district for salary adjustments that will be added to your base pay and become a permanent part of your salary. That's what the $700/$695/$522 was last year. It is now a permanent part of your base pay.
You must apply by DECEMBER 1. (The November 1 deadline has been extended.) You cannot apply until your administrator has signed off on your evaluation (including VAM/local factor) from last year!
Important clarification: The Best and Brightest money ($6,000 for HE/test scores required, $1,200 for HE/no test scores required, up to $800/no test scores required for E) has NOTHING to do with our local bargaining negotiations. It is bonus money from the state. Instead of properly funding school districts, they hope to mollify teachers with bonuses. This money will NOT become a part of your base pay. You have to apply because they state says so. CCEA is bargaining with the district for salary adjustments that will be added to your base pay and become a permanent part of your salary. That's what the $700/$695/$522 was last year. It is now a permanent part of your base pay.
Bargaining Update: 10/9/2017
Bargaining Session #5
10/9/2017
Article IV - Association and Teacher Rights
We are asking that site based leadership teams meet monthly for the purpose of shared decision making and that the site lead rep or their designee serve on that team. We are also asking for the CCEA President be included on the agenda for any new teacher orientation.
Article VI - Professional Day
We initially asked that the dollar amount paid to teachers whose planning periods are affected by meetings related to the School Improvement Plan be raised from $10 to $20. The district originally rejected that with no counter proposal. They have now come back with $15.
Article VII - Planning
TDE days for ESE teachers to complete IEP paperwork: We originally asked for 4 days (one per nine weeks) for ESE teachers with 10 or more contact students. That was rejected with no counter proposal. We then asked for 2 days. The district has now countered with 1 day for inclusion teachers with 20 or more contact students. We countered with 2 days for teachers with 15 or more contact students.
We are still working on language to guarantee that planning time during the student day is teacher-directed.
Article XVI - Leaves
We are asking for 3 days of bereavement leave - an increase from 1.
Article XX - Inservice
We are trying to clear up language about what should be occurring on Wednesdays (formerly PLC time). We are also asking for partial credit to be given for seat time at all inservices.
Article XXVIII - Compensation
CCEA's original salary proposal was a dollar amount that would give $2,000 to PSC and Highly Effective AC teachers and ~$1,500 to Effective AC teachers. (Remember - these numbers are different because we have to implement Performance Pay.)
The district's counter proposal tonight would equate to ~$800 for PSC and Highly Effective AC teachers and ~$600 for Effective AC teachers. This increase would barely cover the increase to many of our people‘s insurance premiums ($560 increase if you are on the cheapest plan - HSA, which is now called Choice HSP). It was swiftly rejected by the bargaining team.
The salary lapse is ~$6.1 million dollars. The superintendent stated that while he has set some of that aside for salaries, these rest will be used for other things. Sigh.
We countered with ~$1,700 for PSC and Highly Effective AC teachers and ~$1,300 for Effective AC teachers.
10/9/2017
Article IV - Association and Teacher Rights
We are asking that site based leadership teams meet monthly for the purpose of shared decision making and that the site lead rep or their designee serve on that team. We are also asking for the CCEA President be included on the agenda for any new teacher orientation.
Article VI - Professional Day
We initially asked that the dollar amount paid to teachers whose planning periods are affected by meetings related to the School Improvement Plan be raised from $10 to $20. The district originally rejected that with no counter proposal. They have now come back with $15.
Article VII - Planning
TDE days for ESE teachers to complete IEP paperwork: We originally asked for 4 days (one per nine weeks) for ESE teachers with 10 or more contact students. That was rejected with no counter proposal. We then asked for 2 days. The district has now countered with 1 day for inclusion teachers with 20 or more contact students. We countered with 2 days for teachers with 15 or more contact students.
We are still working on language to guarantee that planning time during the student day is teacher-directed.
Article XVI - Leaves
We are asking for 3 days of bereavement leave - an increase from 1.
Article XX - Inservice
We are trying to clear up language about what should be occurring on Wednesdays (formerly PLC time). We are also asking for partial credit to be given for seat time at all inservices.
Article XXVIII - Compensation
CCEA's original salary proposal was a dollar amount that would give $2,000 to PSC and Highly Effective AC teachers and ~$1,500 to Effective AC teachers. (Remember - these numbers are different because we have to implement Performance Pay.)
The district's counter proposal tonight would equate to ~$800 for PSC and Highly Effective AC teachers and ~$600 for Effective AC teachers. This increase would barely cover the increase to many of our people‘s insurance premiums ($560 increase if you are on the cheapest plan - HSA, which is now called Choice HSP). It was swiftly rejected by the bargaining team.
The salary lapse is ~$6.1 million dollars. The superintendent stated that while he has set some of that aside for salaries, these rest will be used for other things. Sigh.
We countered with ~$1,700 for PSC and Highly Effective AC teachers and ~$1,300 for Effective AC teachers.
Bargaining Update: 8/18/2017
Bargaining Session #4
8/17/2017
Here is a summary of the main areas of concern during contract negotiations:
Article IV - Association and Teacher Rights
We asked for, and received, language in F.5. that clarifies a building rep's right to address the entire faculty at the end of faculty meetings regarding the time, place, and topics of future CCEA site meetings. We still have principals who will dismiss the faculty and then say "stick around if you want to hear from CCEA" as people are walking out the door.
Article VI - Professional Day
We asked that the dollar amount paid to teachers whose planning periods are affected by meetings related to the School Improvement Plan be raised from $10 to $20. The district did not come back with a compromise amount - it was simply rejected.
Article VII - Planning
We want planning time (during student contact hours) and conference time (outside of student contract time) to have separate and more clear definitions. We are asking for planning time to be "teacher-directed", meaning that no meetings can be scheduled without a teacher's consent. This was rejected by the district, despite numerous statements by our superintendent that planning time in ours.
We have also asked for 2 days of TDE for our ESE teachers with 10 or more contact students so that they can complete their IEP paperwork. We originally asked for 4 days (one per nine weeks). That was rejected with no counter proposal.
Article IX - Teacher Facilities, Equipment, and Materials
We want to codify a teacher's right to use supplemental materials as long as they meet the current standards. The district appears open to some compromises on this point.
We requested a guarantee that a comfortable climate will be maintained in all buildings during teacher working hours. This was rejected with no counter proposal.
Article XI - General Employment Practices
This article is on hold as both side wait for legal clarification on HB7069. According to the law, we can no loner guarantee Annual Contract teachers a job for the next year, regardless of their evaluation score. We are working hard on finding a way to work around this language.
Article XIV - Professional Qualifications and Assignments
We are asking that, when possible, teacher be notified of their teaching assignments prior to the start of Phase I hiring so that they can interview to transfer schools if they so choose.
Article XVI - Leaves
Current language and board policy prevents the district from paying shared sick leave retroactively. We are asking for a change in this policy. In the event that someone runs out of sick leave and goes to an unpaid status, we want to district to process the paperwork and paid out any sick leave that is donated by fellow teachers.
Article XXV - Clay Virtual Academy
We have worked with our CVA reps to develop language for our virtual teachers, including guaranteeing them lead money. This was rejected by the district.
Article XXVIII - Compensation
We made the following proposal:
$2,000 salary adjustment for Highly Effective Performance Pay (Annual Contract) teachers
$1,985.07 salary adjustment for PSC/CC teachers
$1,492.54 salary adjustment for Effective Performance Pay (Annual Contract) teachers
Why are these numbers different?
Beginning last year, we had to be in compliance with Florida's Performance Pay law. It requires that Highly Effective Annual Contract teachers be paid more than PSC teachers and that Effective Annual Contract teachers be paid 50-75% of whatever is paid to Highly Effective Annual Contract teachers. We went with the 75% figure to make things as even as possible.
If you have questions about Performance Pay, please scroll down to our 12/16/2016 post. We don't like it, but we have to follow the law.
Many teachers have told us that they want their steps back. Unfortunately, due to the law, we can no longer pay teachers that way. While we do not like the idea of pitting teachers against each other by paying them differently (effective v. highly effective), there is one upside to our new system. Under our old step system, teachers with 10 or fewer years of experience saw very small increases each year: $300-500. The big gains didn't happen until the end of their career. Under this new system, all teachers with the same evaluation rating receive the same dollar amount, regardless of their years of experience. We can now start getting money into teachers' hands as they are buying their first home, having children, trying to pay off student loans, etc. Remember - these salary adjustments become a PERMANENT part of your salary. Any gains we make will follow you throughout your career in Clay County.
8/17/2017
Here is a summary of the main areas of concern during contract negotiations:
Article IV - Association and Teacher Rights
We asked for, and received, language in F.5. that clarifies a building rep's right to address the entire faculty at the end of faculty meetings regarding the time, place, and topics of future CCEA site meetings. We still have principals who will dismiss the faculty and then say "stick around if you want to hear from CCEA" as people are walking out the door.
Article VI - Professional Day
We asked that the dollar amount paid to teachers whose planning periods are affected by meetings related to the School Improvement Plan be raised from $10 to $20. The district did not come back with a compromise amount - it was simply rejected.
Article VII - Planning
We want planning time (during student contact hours) and conference time (outside of student contract time) to have separate and more clear definitions. We are asking for planning time to be "teacher-directed", meaning that no meetings can be scheduled without a teacher's consent. This was rejected by the district, despite numerous statements by our superintendent that planning time in ours.
We have also asked for 2 days of TDE for our ESE teachers with 10 or more contact students so that they can complete their IEP paperwork. We originally asked for 4 days (one per nine weeks). That was rejected with no counter proposal.
Article IX - Teacher Facilities, Equipment, and Materials
We want to codify a teacher's right to use supplemental materials as long as they meet the current standards. The district appears open to some compromises on this point.
We requested a guarantee that a comfortable climate will be maintained in all buildings during teacher working hours. This was rejected with no counter proposal.
Article XI - General Employment Practices
This article is on hold as both side wait for legal clarification on HB7069. According to the law, we can no loner guarantee Annual Contract teachers a job for the next year, regardless of their evaluation score. We are working hard on finding a way to work around this language.
Article XIV - Professional Qualifications and Assignments
We are asking that, when possible, teacher be notified of their teaching assignments prior to the start of Phase I hiring so that they can interview to transfer schools if they so choose.
Article XVI - Leaves
Current language and board policy prevents the district from paying shared sick leave retroactively. We are asking for a change in this policy. In the event that someone runs out of sick leave and goes to an unpaid status, we want to district to process the paperwork and paid out any sick leave that is donated by fellow teachers.
Article XXV - Clay Virtual Academy
We have worked with our CVA reps to develop language for our virtual teachers, including guaranteeing them lead money. This was rejected by the district.
Article XXVIII - Compensation
We made the following proposal:
$2,000 salary adjustment for Highly Effective Performance Pay (Annual Contract) teachers
$1,985.07 salary adjustment for PSC/CC teachers
$1,492.54 salary adjustment for Effective Performance Pay (Annual Contract) teachers
Why are these numbers different?
Beginning last year, we had to be in compliance with Florida's Performance Pay law. It requires that Highly Effective Annual Contract teachers be paid more than PSC teachers and that Effective Annual Contract teachers be paid 50-75% of whatever is paid to Highly Effective Annual Contract teachers. We went with the 75% figure to make things as even as possible.
If you have questions about Performance Pay, please scroll down to our 12/16/2016 post. We don't like it, but we have to follow the law.
Many teachers have told us that they want their steps back. Unfortunately, due to the law, we can no longer pay teachers that way. While we do not like the idea of pitting teachers against each other by paying them differently (effective v. highly effective), there is one upside to our new system. Under our old step system, teachers with 10 or fewer years of experience saw very small increases each year: $300-500. The big gains didn't happen until the end of their career. Under this new system, all teachers with the same evaluation rating receive the same dollar amount, regardless of their years of experience. We can now start getting money into teachers' hands as they are buying their first home, having children, trying to pay off student loans, etc. Remember - these salary adjustments become a PERMANENT part of your salary. Any gains we make will follow you throughout your career in Clay County.
Contract Ratification Update: 1/13/17
The CCEA Bargaining Unit voted to approve the contract with a 98.6% yes vote.
Contract Ratification Update: 12/13/16
The School Board will vote on whether or not to ratify our contract for the 2016-2017 school year this Thursday, January 5th @ 6 p.m. at the TTC. Please attend this meeting and show your support for the contract that has been negotiated for you by your bargaining team. The ratification packet will be posted by the district at your school/work site by Friday, January 6th. The link is available below.
Besides the Annual Contract language that we fought so hard for, the contract includes the following salary adjustments:
These salary adjustments are based on your 2015-2016 evaluation and are a permanent increase in your base salary. (Please see previous Bargaining Update post for more information about the performance pay process and why it has to be done this way.)
The pay increase will be retroactive upon ratification by the school board and our bargaining unit. Our vote will take place at your school/work site on Friday, January 13. We encourage you to vote "yes". Your bargaining team worked very hard to make the best of a terrible situation in regards to the new performance pay law.
CCEA Bargaining Team:
Tracy Butler
Ray Fisher
Laura Mayberry
Michelle Roberts (and her sub Melissa Kaplan)
Andrew Sadlo
Smitty Huffman
Mylon Pope
Besides the Annual Contract language that we fought so hard for, the contract includes the following salary adjustments:
- Annual Contract Highly Effective: $700
- PSC/CC Effective & Highly Effective: $695
- Annual Contract Effective: $522
These salary adjustments are based on your 2015-2016 evaluation and are a permanent increase in your base salary. (Please see previous Bargaining Update post for more information about the performance pay process and why it has to be done this way.)
The pay increase will be retroactive upon ratification by the school board and our bargaining unit. Our vote will take place at your school/work site on Friday, January 13. We encourage you to vote "yes". Your bargaining team worked very hard to make the best of a terrible situation in regards to the new performance pay law.
CCEA Bargaining Team:
Tracy Butler
Ray Fisher
Laura Mayberry
Michelle Roberts (and her sub Melissa Kaplan)
Andrew Sadlo
Smitty Huffman
Mylon Pope
2016-2017 Ratification Package
Bargaining Update: 10/25/2016
We made a lot of progress last night in our second bargaining session with the district. There are three open articles: Compensation (XXVIII), Professional Qualifications and Assignments (XIV), and General Employment Practices (XI).
Professional Qualifications and Assignments:
We passed across language to provide teachers more input into teaching assignment / subject area / grade level changes. We are waiting on a counter offer from the district.
General Employment Practices:
The district has agreed to add "sexual orientation" to the discrimination clause. We have been fighting for this for almost four years!
The district is also open to protections for our annual contract teachers. Again, we have been fighting for this for almost four years! We are still debating over the exact language, but we are excited to be moving forward. Please tell the annual contract teachers at your school sites that they need to join the professional association that is fighting for them!
Compensation:
Performance Pay is upon us. By law we have to implement it this year. We kicked that can down the road as far as we could but we will now have to give salary adjustments based upon evaluation scores. For this year, we will only be using the portion of your 2015-2016 evaluation that does not include VAM (now 33.33% of your overall score). In the future, the overall score must be used.
The district says that they have $1.2 million available for salary adjustments. Based upon last year's evaluations, this would equate to approximately $300 for Effective Annual Contract Teachers and approximately $400 for Highly Effective Annual Contract Teachers and Effective/Highly Effective PSC teachers. We strongly disagree with treating annual contract and PSC teachers differently, but we have to be in compliance with the law.
We are not happy with these numbers, but the only way that this will change is if teachers start showing up and speaking out at school board meetings to pressure them to put proper raises in the budget. Your bargaining team cannot do this alone! We are getting annual contract language because they do not want to go through impasse again. The pressure that we put on them last year worked, but we cannot let up now.
We will announce the date of our next bargaining session as soon as it is set.
Professional Qualifications and Assignments:
We passed across language to provide teachers more input into teaching assignment / subject area / grade level changes. We are waiting on a counter offer from the district.
General Employment Practices:
The district has agreed to add "sexual orientation" to the discrimination clause. We have been fighting for this for almost four years!
The district is also open to protections for our annual contract teachers. Again, we have been fighting for this for almost four years! We are still debating over the exact language, but we are excited to be moving forward. Please tell the annual contract teachers at your school sites that they need to join the professional association that is fighting for them!
Compensation:
Performance Pay is upon us. By law we have to implement it this year. We kicked that can down the road as far as we could but we will now have to give salary adjustments based upon evaluation scores. For this year, we will only be using the portion of your 2015-2016 evaluation that does not include VAM (now 33.33% of your overall score). In the future, the overall score must be used.
The district says that they have $1.2 million available for salary adjustments. Based upon last year's evaluations, this would equate to approximately $300 for Effective Annual Contract Teachers and approximately $400 for Highly Effective Annual Contract Teachers and Effective/Highly Effective PSC teachers. We strongly disagree with treating annual contract and PSC teachers differently, but we have to be in compliance with the law.
We are not happy with these numbers, but the only way that this will change is if teachers start showing up and speaking out at school board meetings to pressure them to put proper raises in the budget. Your bargaining team cannot do this alone! We are getting annual contract language because they do not want to go through impasse again. The pressure that we put on them last year worked, but we cannot let up now.
We will announce the date of our next bargaining session as soon as it is set.
Performance Pay
The following is what we will likely propose to the district. We are trying to make the best of a horrible situation imposed upon us by the lawmakers in Tallahassee.
UPDATE: 10/25/16
Unfortunately, we cannot grandfather in our annual contract teachers who were hired prior to July 1, 2014. According to the law, all teacher on an annual contract as of that date (regardless of when they were initially hired) must be on the Performance Pay scale.
UPDATE: 10/25/16
Unfortunately, we cannot grandfather in our annual contract teachers who were hired prior to July 1, 2014. According to the law, all teacher on an annual contract as of that date (regardless of when they were initially hired) must be on the Performance Pay scale.
|
|
About that $500...
March 14, 2016
After last week’s public hearing, several news articles stated that (1) CCEA asked for a $1,000 “raise” for teachers (don’t even get me started on that word... more about that in another post) (2) the district countered with $500 (3) CCEA turned down the district’s offer. This led people to ask why we would turn down money since the district was meeting us half-way.
1. If $500 is “meeting us half-way”, that means the district’s original offer was $0. Coming to the table with an offer of $0 IS NOT BARGAINING.
2. The special magistrate agreed with CCEA that a salary increase of $1,000 would be more than fair and bring us closer to the state average.
3. The district did not just offer $500. There were strings attached. In last year’s bargaining agreement, the district agreed to pay teachers at their hourly rate for staying 1/2 hour past their contracted day for 25 once-a-week PLC meetings. This would come out to roughly $450 for the average teacher. CCEA only agreed to this because we were told by the district that the money was coming from a grant that could not be used for recurring operating costs (salaries). We figured that some money was better than no money and it was a chance to get a few dollars into the pockets of our overworked, underpaid teachers. We found out later that this money could have been used for salaries.
During this year’s bargaining sessions, the district offered to give teachers $500 IN EXCHANGE FOR THE ABILITY TO HAVE A FLEXIBLE WORK WEEK. They want teachers to have a full hour before or after school in order to fit in PLCs. They wanted to shave 5 minutes off of 4 days and add that 20 minutes to one day (likely Wednesday) in order to have that full hour. This would REPLACE the optional extra 1/2 hour PLC pay that amounts to ~$450. Essentially, they were offering us $50 and asking us to give up very strong contract language that states that we have a 7.5 hour work day.
We were not willing to give up that language. We worked very hard to get that language. We already show up early and leave late. Shaving 5 minutes off of our work day for 4 days is giving the district time we don’t have. We’ll still have to get to work early and stay late to get the job done. All this would do is make us stay even later on Wednesdays. Many teachers cannot do this due to child-care issues and WORKING SECOND JOBS JUST TO GET BY.
Please don’t be fooled when they try to say that we turned down $500. That is a gross oversimplification of the issue.
1. If $500 is “meeting us half-way”, that means the district’s original offer was $0. Coming to the table with an offer of $0 IS NOT BARGAINING.
2. The special magistrate agreed with CCEA that a salary increase of $1,000 would be more than fair and bring us closer to the state average.
3. The district did not just offer $500. There were strings attached. In last year’s bargaining agreement, the district agreed to pay teachers at their hourly rate for staying 1/2 hour past their contracted day for 25 once-a-week PLC meetings. This would come out to roughly $450 for the average teacher. CCEA only agreed to this because we were told by the district that the money was coming from a grant that could not be used for recurring operating costs (salaries). We figured that some money was better than no money and it was a chance to get a few dollars into the pockets of our overworked, underpaid teachers. We found out later that this money could have been used for salaries.
During this year’s bargaining sessions, the district offered to give teachers $500 IN EXCHANGE FOR THE ABILITY TO HAVE A FLEXIBLE WORK WEEK. They want teachers to have a full hour before or after school in order to fit in PLCs. They wanted to shave 5 minutes off of 4 days and add that 20 minutes to one day (likely Wednesday) in order to have that full hour. This would REPLACE the optional extra 1/2 hour PLC pay that amounts to ~$450. Essentially, they were offering us $50 and asking us to give up very strong contract language that states that we have a 7.5 hour work day.
We were not willing to give up that language. We worked very hard to get that language. We already show up early and leave late. Shaving 5 minutes off of our work day for 4 days is giving the district time we don’t have. We’ll still have to get to work early and stay late to get the job done. All this would do is make us stay even later on Wednesdays. Many teachers cannot do this due to child-care issues and WORKING SECOND JOBS JUST TO GET BY.
Please don’t be fooled when they try to say that we turned down $500. That is a gross oversimplification of the issue.
The “R” Word: Understanding How Teacher Salaries Work
March 14, 2016
“Clay County teachers plead case for raises”
“School Board says no money for teacher raises”
“Clay district dilemma: raises or reserves”
These are just a few of the headlines that have been in the papers over the last few weeks. While we are grateful for the coverage, I would like to clarify something. WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR RAISES!
To understand why asking for an increase in our salaries does not necessarily equate to asking for a raise, I need to explain how teacher salaries work. When each of us was hired, we were shown a salary schedule with a set number of salary steps based on years of experience. Many public employees are paid in a similar fashion. We were told that we would progress along this schedule each year. Some counties have contract language that states that these steps are automatic. Unfortunately, we do not have that language here in Clay County. We have to bargain for our step each year.
The average amount between each step was around $1,000. The steps were smaller at the beginning of the schedule and bigger at the end of the schedule. On average, a $1,000 increase equates to about a 2% increase in gross income. In the big scheme of things, this is not a lot. It barely equates to a cost of living adjustment to compensate for inflation. Under the last salary schedule before we converted to “levels” (more on that later), a new teacher with no experience was paid a starting salary of $38,000 and could reach the top step of $60,000 after 27 years if they were given their step each year. 27 years!
Once you account for inflation, $60,000 will not even be worth $38,000 in real terms 27 years from now. Now you can see why we don’t call these steps “raises”. Our steps aren’t making us better off - they are barely keeping us even with our expenses. So what would an actual raise look like? A raise is when the entire salary schedule is shifted up. For example: Moving the starting salary to $39,000, making the top step $61,000. When that occurs, moving teachers up a step results in a larger salary increase. This has not occurred since the recession.
“But you didn’t go into teaching for the money.” AHHHHHHH! We knew we’d never become rich, but we didn’t expect to get POORER each year. We are professionals with college degrees. Many of us have advanced degrees. We are just asking to be treated accordingly. Many of our private sector peers make far more money with less education. “But they don’t get tenure like teachers do.” AHHHHHHH! Another misconception. We don’t have tenure. We don’t have a “job for life”. We simply have due process. We cannot be fired for no reason. Our employer has to show just cause, and that now applies to a smaller and smaller group of us thanks to Senate Bill 6. Passed in 2010, it required that all teachers hired after July 2011 be put on annual contracts. They can be released at the end of any school year for no reason, even if they receive a highly effective evaluation score.
We chose to trade higher private sector salaries for job security, and now most of us don’t even have that.
So what do teacher salaries look like now?
Because of Senate Bill 736 (the performance pay bill), we had to make some pretty big adjustments to our salary schedule. We could no longer have those big jumps between steps at the top of the schedule. We had to even out the schedule, with $1,000 increments between every step. That in and of itself was not a bad thing. The problem came when we had to make sure that our compensation language was in compliance with the rest of the bill. In order to do this, we moved from “steps” to “levels”. The schedule that is now in our contract represents what we nicknamed the “entrée into the system” schedule. It shows your starting salary based on the number of years of experience that you bring with you. Current Clay County teachers were moved over to this schedule based on their years of experience. However, we were behind several steps when that happened. Teachers were moved over to the new schedule (which resulted in a slight increase in their pay) and then moved up a level (which resulted in another increase.) For the average teacher the total increase was the equivalent of about 2 steps on the old schedule.
Great, right? How nice of the district to do that for teachers! Not exactly. That was the same year that we got what came to be known as the “governor’s money”. Rick Scott promised to increase funding to school districts so that they could increase teacher salaries by $2,500. It turns out that it wasn’t quite that much money. We had to use this money to move our teachers over to the new schedule and move them up a level. The district did not contribute a single dime! We could have demanded to add that money to the old schedule, but then we would not have been in compliance with the law.
Once we converted to the new schedule, the understanding was that teachers would still receive salary increases (now called “adjustments” according to the new law, but we still say steps) each year. The main difference would be that all the increases would be equal. The district understood that they should budget for each teacher to receive at least $1,000 each year. If they did not have enough money, we would take what they had and divide it by the total number of teachers to arrive at the amount of the adjustment for that year.
“But won’t these adjustments, or steps, or whatever you call them, cost the district more and more money each year?” NO! If this was true, the district would have gone bankrupt decades ago. Steps are basically self-funding. When a teacher making $60,000 retires and is replaced by a new teacher making $38,000, this frees up $22,000. That’s enough to pay 22 teachers their $1,000 adjustment. See below for an example.
To make a long story short, when we talk about raises the general public says “We haven’t gotten a raise either!” Two important points here: (1) This reaction is usually the result of a misunderstanding about how teachers are paid, and (2) The recession is over. The economy is improving. We are simply asking for what ALL WORKERS should be asking for - a fair shake.
“School Board says no money for teacher raises”
“Clay district dilemma: raises or reserves”
These are just a few of the headlines that have been in the papers over the last few weeks. While we are grateful for the coverage, I would like to clarify something. WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR RAISES!
To understand why asking for an increase in our salaries does not necessarily equate to asking for a raise, I need to explain how teacher salaries work. When each of us was hired, we were shown a salary schedule with a set number of salary steps based on years of experience. Many public employees are paid in a similar fashion. We were told that we would progress along this schedule each year. Some counties have contract language that states that these steps are automatic. Unfortunately, we do not have that language here in Clay County. We have to bargain for our step each year.
The average amount between each step was around $1,000. The steps were smaller at the beginning of the schedule and bigger at the end of the schedule. On average, a $1,000 increase equates to about a 2% increase in gross income. In the big scheme of things, this is not a lot. It barely equates to a cost of living adjustment to compensate for inflation. Under the last salary schedule before we converted to “levels” (more on that later), a new teacher with no experience was paid a starting salary of $38,000 and could reach the top step of $60,000 after 27 years if they were given their step each year. 27 years!
Once you account for inflation, $60,000 will not even be worth $38,000 in real terms 27 years from now. Now you can see why we don’t call these steps “raises”. Our steps aren’t making us better off - they are barely keeping us even with our expenses. So what would an actual raise look like? A raise is when the entire salary schedule is shifted up. For example: Moving the starting salary to $39,000, making the top step $61,000. When that occurs, moving teachers up a step results in a larger salary increase. This has not occurred since the recession.
“But you didn’t go into teaching for the money.” AHHHHHHH! We knew we’d never become rich, but we didn’t expect to get POORER each year. We are professionals with college degrees. Many of us have advanced degrees. We are just asking to be treated accordingly. Many of our private sector peers make far more money with less education. “But they don’t get tenure like teachers do.” AHHHHHHH! Another misconception. We don’t have tenure. We don’t have a “job for life”. We simply have due process. We cannot be fired for no reason. Our employer has to show just cause, and that now applies to a smaller and smaller group of us thanks to Senate Bill 6. Passed in 2010, it required that all teachers hired after July 2011 be put on annual contracts. They can be released at the end of any school year for no reason, even if they receive a highly effective evaluation score.
We chose to trade higher private sector salaries for job security, and now most of us don’t even have that.
So what do teacher salaries look like now?
Because of Senate Bill 736 (the performance pay bill), we had to make some pretty big adjustments to our salary schedule. We could no longer have those big jumps between steps at the top of the schedule. We had to even out the schedule, with $1,000 increments between every step. That in and of itself was not a bad thing. The problem came when we had to make sure that our compensation language was in compliance with the rest of the bill. In order to do this, we moved from “steps” to “levels”. The schedule that is now in our contract represents what we nicknamed the “entrée into the system” schedule. It shows your starting salary based on the number of years of experience that you bring with you. Current Clay County teachers were moved over to this schedule based on their years of experience. However, we were behind several steps when that happened. Teachers were moved over to the new schedule (which resulted in a slight increase in their pay) and then moved up a level (which resulted in another increase.) For the average teacher the total increase was the equivalent of about 2 steps on the old schedule.
Great, right? How nice of the district to do that for teachers! Not exactly. That was the same year that we got what came to be known as the “governor’s money”. Rick Scott promised to increase funding to school districts so that they could increase teacher salaries by $2,500. It turns out that it wasn’t quite that much money. We had to use this money to move our teachers over to the new schedule and move them up a level. The district did not contribute a single dime! We could have demanded to add that money to the old schedule, but then we would not have been in compliance with the law.
Once we converted to the new schedule, the understanding was that teachers would still receive salary increases (now called “adjustments” according to the new law, but we still say steps) each year. The main difference would be that all the increases would be equal. The district understood that they should budget for each teacher to receive at least $1,000 each year. If they did not have enough money, we would take what they had and divide it by the total number of teachers to arrive at the amount of the adjustment for that year.
“But won’t these adjustments, or steps, or whatever you call them, cost the district more and more money each year?” NO! If this was true, the district would have gone bankrupt decades ago. Steps are basically self-funding. When a teacher making $60,000 retires and is replaced by a new teacher making $38,000, this frees up $22,000. That’s enough to pay 22 teachers their $1,000 adjustment. See below for an example.
To make a long story short, when we talk about raises the general public says “We haven’t gotten a raise either!” Two important points here: (1) This reaction is usually the result of a misunderstanding about how teachers are paid, and (2) The recession is over. The economy is improving. We are simply asking for what ALL WORKERS should be asking for - a fair shake.
