Friday, September 18, 2015

Proposed Staff Ratios in New Teachers Contract

From SPS via KPLU (here's link to complete page with footnotes):






Embedded image permalink



Just noticed this tweet to KPLU:

Ratio definition is flipped. Should be (student:teacher:IA), but says (teacher:student:IA).

From SEA page - complete overview of contract.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

the chart is not correct. I can send you a copy of the old contract, which I downloaded before it was taken off. I noticed Vision is off. It goes up by 6.



Service Model

Proposed

Access

10:1:3
Emotional/Social
10:1:2
Contained
10:1:2
Distinct
8:1:2
Deaf/Hard of Hearing Preschool
12:1:2
Deaf/Hard Hearing Elem.
9:1:2
Med Fragile
6:1:2
Vision Impairment
12:1:1
Orientation & Mobility (Itinerant)
12:1
Resource
18:1:1
Resource Continuum
22:1
Preschool
12:1:2
Transition (Access, Behavior, Contained)
10:1:2
Transition (Med Frag/Distinct)
6:1:2
88

double check

Melissa Westbrook said...

Yes, do send me a correct one. This came from SPS but perhaps was a draft.

sss.westbrook@gmail.com

GarfieldMom said...

I'm looking at the old CBA and can confirm that it says 12:1:1 for Vision Impairment

GarfieldMom said...

Oh, but the excerpt of the TA on SPED says the 12:1:1 in the last contract was an error... See http://www.seattlewea.org/images/static_content/BARGAINING/TA_DOCS_2015/Special%20Education.pdf

Anonymous said...

This is vastly expanded self-containment. As usual. EBD is 10:1:2 throughout high school. That's new. Focus - is an entirely new self-contained program. Only students in secondary school "access", where it matters most, are taking it in the shorts. Right now there are SM4 programs with inclusion cohorts in high school. They aRe staffed 8:1:2. That's a pretty big delta.

What's the message here? You can have the staffing you need - but only if you're willing to swallow segregation and sit in the patty-cake room all day. Same old, same old. And it never saves a dime. It just means that more and more students will have to be in self-contained settings, and that will make them more expensive.

The other thing about having tiny ratio's like 7:1:2 or 6:1:2.... when those programs aren't full, they're still FULLY staffed. So it's often 3:1:2, or 4:1:2. Because you can't kill a program if somebody's still in it. Sometimes there are even more staff than students.

Vote no.

Sped Reader

Anonymous said...

You also need to look at overages from before and after, as that tells you what kind of help you can get if you overflow.
Voting no

Anonymous said...

I am voting yes.
I agree SPED didn't get much of anything in this contract. In fact, in some areas it is even worse. I think OSPI should take SPS to the cleaners and then maybe they would put some more money and resources into actual staff working with kids instead of supervisors/compliance people. Having more compliance people doesn't get you into compliance. Putting money into staffing and services gets you into compliance, or at least closer. I don't think voting no on the contract is going to solve the SPED issues. If I did, I would vote for it.
Teacher

Anonymous said...

Teacher, OSPI can't do a damn thing about sped, and they don't want to. They have no power really. They can withhold federal funds, which they never really actually do. That's less than 10% of sped funding. That probably doesn't even cover the real hogs at the trough - director after director.... with supervisors, program specialists, consultants... you name it. Any and all career climbers. Evidently OSPI told em more supervisors, less service. Staff was actually trained to start removing themselves from IEPs, so there would be fewer complaints... Btw staff, that means you'll get the axe too. More supervisors means fewer working teachers, therapists, and Ias.

Sped Reader

Anonymous said...

SPED Reader, That's depressing about OSPI. I totally agree about too many supervisors etc on top. If there isn't enough money, as Nyland keeps saying, then lets put the money into teachers and services. My understanding is that the compliance people downtown don't even agree with each other about what SPED staff are supposed to write or how to write it. I think we might be more in compliance if we actually provided the services and had fewer compliance folks. Hopefully with fewer compliance folks it would be easier for them to be on the same page!
Teacher

Anonymous said...

Are "the compliance people downtown" lawyers? No, they are not. They are just teachers like everybody else. Do they have some special training? No, they train each other. I knew one that became a "compliance specialist", one year after starting to teach. 24 years old, 1 year of experience... suddenly knows all about being compliant. The way to stop complaints (because complaints become compliance issues) is to collaborate with families and adopt a problem solving approach.

Sped Reader

Anonymous said...

Teacher said:
I am voting yes.
I agree SPED didn't get much of anything in this contract. In fact, in some areas it is even worse.

This is depressing. I don't have a kid in SpEd, but the way I've been reading the SpEd-related conversations it sounds like most teachers don't see SpEd as their problem, so they'll vote for the TA and leave it to someone else to fix SpEd. Even if nobody will.

Am I off base?

HF

Anonymous said...

HF, you're wrong. The reason I am voting no is because I don't think voting yes on the TA will may any difference at all about sped issues. I'm a gen ed teacher and of course I am concerned about sped. What happens in sped impacts ALL teachers. I can't think of a year that I haven't had sped kids in my class. How much or how little support I get makes a huge difference to my day to day life as a teacher.
Teacher

Anonymous said...

Here is an update from inside of Seattle Public Schools and Seattle Education Association on the special education ratios:

Both Wyeth Jesse (Special Education Director) and Phyllis Campano (SEA Vice President) have stated repeatedly to special education teachers that these newly approved ratios for the recently ratified teachers contract will NOT be implemented until the 2016-17 school year.

This adversely affects all students in special education programs because they are not receiving the agreed upon number of student to staff ratios, and as such many students have not been able to access the general education environment.