Strike Updates
Yesterday at the Seattle Education Association membership meeting, a vote was taken to authorize a strike. The answer was yes, if the district and SEA do not come to an agreement before school starts on Wednesday, September 5th, the teachers will be on strike.
The School Board has their regularly schedule Board meeting today, starting at 4:15 pm. SEA is urging teachers to picket at their schools from 3:30-4:30 pm with some coming to the Board meeting. So far there are just five speakers on the list so plenty of room for more people to speak.
From Seattle Weekly:
SPS teachers’ salaries range between $51,500 to $100,700 under the current contract, the district’s assistant superintendent for business and finance, JoLynn Berge, told Seattle Weekly in an Aug. 6 interview. Meanwhile, teachers on Bainbridge Island negotiated a 21.2 percent wage increase to earn between $53,905 and $105,096; Shoreline’s union also secured salaries ranging from $62,088 to $120,234 through a 24.2 percent wage increase, according to WEA data.From the district (partial):
Educators are the heart of Seattle Public Schools. The district supports our educators and believe they deserve a fair and competitive salary that includes every dollar the state has provided for compensation. We must balance our desire to support our educators while at the same time sustaining critical services and programs students need and families expect. Even with offering every state dollar, starting in 2019-20 the district is projecting a budget shortfall that will grow over time.From SEA:
A strike authorization does not mean educators are going on strike. Strike authorization gives the SEA bargaining team the authority to call a strike if an agreement is not reached. This is a normal procedural step if a tentative agreement between SEA and the district has not been reached prior to the general assembly meeting. The district and SEA continue to discuss important topics, including compensation, and will resume formal bargaining Wednesday morning. We remain optimistic that school will begin September 5.
I can find no official statement from SEA, either at Facebook or at their website. This is all I find:
SEA members have given their bargaining team authority to call for a strike starting September 5, if a Tentative Agreement is not reached.
One bit of information I gleaned from a teacher writing on Facebook about the negotiations:
They are trying to sell us on a 10% raise, maybe. That does not even put us in line with Bellevue or Lake Washington, even though they claim is does. The middle and high end of the salary scale is still 6-7k lower. Many proposals don’t include these raises for SAEOPS either. Unacceptable. And don’t even get me started on how much teachers are being incentivized to go to nearby Shoreline! A 15% would still leave us far below our neighbor.But at the SEA Facebook page, one teacher said this:
Bargaining is about reaching compromise and in this case it is dire if we go above 10%. It is fact, not fear. I don’t like it either, but Seattle’s situation is such. We have all certs and support staff in our union, and we can’t do the same thing that other districts have done. Scratch that...we could, but union solidarity would be a joke if certs left them all behind. Also, 10% would put certs in comparable pay territory with the numbers in three close districts that are the most similar to us. Is this solving the low pay for living in the city problem? No, sadly. But the levy steal is deep and problematic. The RA was open with the information and honest about the process.Another teacher:
Shoreline’s new salary schedule was released this weekend. A cert at MA+90 with 9 years experience there will get $95,144 now.
Seattle’s current salary for that same lane situation is $73,301.
So even if there was a 10% raise on TOTAL pay, rather than base, which is how they usually do things, that cert would still lag Shoreline by about $15,000. I don’t consider that “comparable pay territory.”
Comments
But SPS itself also has no choice now but to settle with SEA and grant them what they want. With the strike authorization vote, SPS has now lost all of its leverage. The public supports the teachers and nothing will change that. If there is a strike, parents will blame the district. If the strike is prolonged, parents will still blame the district.
No possible good can come from a strike from the district's perspective. They will have to settle on something very closely resembling SEA's terms. But much that is bad can come from a strike for the district. It would poison relations between a new and well-regarded superintendent and parents and teachers - I cannot imagine Denise Juneau wants a strike to open her time in Seattle.
It would be even worse for the school board, as it would make it very difficult for incumbent directors to get re-elected or to win election to another office - especially those who literally stood with teachers in 2015. Worse, it would add fuel to the fire with corporate ed reformers and the Seattle Times who claim the district is mismanaged.
While I understand the financial concerns the district raises, those aren't SEA's fault, and the district cannot solve them by forcing a strike. The district has no choice but to concede to what SEA wants and then pivot to getting the legislature to fix what they broke in 2017.
Right now, the Seattle legislators who are responsible for this mess are sitting quietly on the sidelines, hoping nobody will notice them. That must change.
Compromise.
I am a parent of a current and future student. I want the teachers to get a raise but it makes no sense to promise money that isn't there. If there is one thing we have learned from the legislature over the past years, it's that we should not have faith that they will fix this.
As painful as it is to think about doing this all over next year, doesn't it make the most sense to only do a one year contract for 2018/19 while there is (I believe) a surplus to pay for raises? Then we can see what happens in the legislature to deal with the decrease in local levy caps and the next contract can be negotiated with a better understanding of the financial situation for the upcoming years.
I don't like to sound so pessimistic, but leveraging our district's budget beyond next year on hope and wishes for the legislature to do the right thing is destined to end in financial and programmatic disaster IMO.
Phinney Dad
The Seattle Education Association has not had an honest conversation with the public. They have failed to inform the public that Seattle Public Schools is facing a projected $68M budget deficit in a few years. It is past time for the Seattle Education Association to circulate this document.
http://seattleschools.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_543/File/District/Departments/2019%20Levies/SPS-LeviesInfographic_ADA.pdf
I agree with compromise.
reader
Reader
Political realities being what they are, I think creating a deep financial hole and then depending on the legislature to bail us out is not a likely scenario given the current elected officials.
Everyone has to weigh the possibility the district goes broke and into receivership instead and that the state then gets control and the ability to drive down costs as it sees fit.
-BudgetPain
So let's do that rather than screw our schools by forcing Seattle teachers to work for less than they can get just across the city limit.
-Cynic
Let's see the numbers...all of them.
With regard to the legislature, many of us knew the 2016 education funding plan would come back to haunt us. Here we are. The Republican plan, acceded to by Democrats, shortchanged Seattle because of the claim that our supply of low-cost housing didn't warrant the kind of increased funds allocated to districts surrounding Seattle. In effect, the legislature calculated that it's more expensive to live near Seattle than in Seattle. There's no surprise that the Republicans would structure an education funding plan to disadvantage Seattle. The Democrats' acquiescence, and their excuses for it, have been a pitiful thing to behold.
XJT
Fairmount Parent
Reality Check
" The legislature has, in the past, consistently refused to fund education in this state for as long as I have lived here (over 35 years). Even when they were flush with money they wouldn't do it. I am tired of hearing their excuses" .
I have lived here for over 25 years and feel similar, am hoping people will put enough pressure to really change things. The media has been reporting the problems with the new funding model that is flawed.
A parent
https://www.seattleschools.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_543/File/District/Departments/Budget/2019%20Budget%20Development/adoptedbudget19.pdf
SDD
Y-axis
The legislature in 2017 rigged the game against Seattle. They imposed two rounds of budget cuts - one in 2019, one in 2023 - designed to force cuts to our schools and keep teacher pay low.
Why would we play along with this game? Why would we just assume that the legislature's actions are etched in stone and unchangeable? We should not accept those budget cuts as inevitable, and we should not undermine our schools by underpaying teachers on that basis.
Don't do the Republicans' work for them.
It is pretty clear to me that the "pay the teachers now and let's go to the legislature to fix this mess" is not a strategy likely to lead to success.
I've heard from someone in another area that believes the class size reduction will be the first thing to go. Ultimately, he believes the legislature will reopen the definition of "basic education" to start trying to define it in ways that fit the available funds rather than having the funds fit the definition
McCleary is over. This is the wreck in its wake. When legislators don't "fix" this, someone or some entity will file a lawsuit and McCleary II will be born. Fifteen (twenty?) years from now that case will be concluded.
It's hard not to be pessimistic
Anyone have thoughts on Carlyle's comments?
We can either just lower our heads and accept a bad deal and the devastation of our schools, or we fight back now. My kid starts kindergarten in SPS next year. I know which option I'm choosing.
I have crunched the numbers. Seattle could offer 10% and be competitive with Bellevue and Lake Washington.
Seattle @10% .... Bellevue....Washington
Year 1: $55K …….$53K …$58K
Higher on the scale:
$105K....$104K....$102K.
It is time for these numbers to become known.
The board should hold the line.
There are no guarantees that a bill would make it through Olympia.
IMO, WEA was more interested in inflammatory rhetoric. " Lake Washington got 20%..we should too!." "Our teachers will flee to neighboring districts.!" "We need to offer competitive wages.!"
Rhetoric should be followed with numbers.
Cheers.
SDD
Cheers,
Y-axis
An interesting exercise -- go to OSPI's site and download the multi-year comparison tool:
http://www.k12.wa.us/SAFS/18budprp.asp
Pull out the summary sheet and sort all the districts in the state by their percentage bump from 2017-2018 to the downgrade year of 2019-2020. You will find 132 districts below Seattle on that list, some even in the Puget Sound area.
Seattle has a problem because its levy of around $4000/student is now being capped at $2500/student. It can reach that level with a local tax rate of $0.63 per $1000. (See "Worksheet for Estimating 2019 through 2022 Levy Authority and LEA" on the same page.)
Those are mind-boggling figures for most of the rest of the state's districts, which are getting whacked instead by the $1.50 tax rate cap and then LEAed up to $1500/student. (Olympia and Tacoma both being good examples closer to home.)
Seattle got "screwed" if you compare it to districts like Lake Washington. Absolutely, but so did everyone else. Meanwhile, half the state also got "screwed" in comparison to Seattle.
And we're all in trouble once some of the mandatory benefits language phases in.
SDD
http://www.k12.wa.us/safs/PUB/PER/1718/ps.asp
http://mynorthwest.com/1095233/liv-finne-teachers-union-strikes/
I do really get tired of the assaults on public sector worker salaries when the private sector pays so much higher. Sure as the cost of Seattle has been driven unaffordable by highly paid tech and other workers they just want to keep public sector employees salaries the same year after year. They also have no clue about how the state legislature is the problem and just complain about their own property taxes going toward teacher salaries.
I know so many highly educated & experienced people in the public sector outside of K-12 (at colleges etc) who have been making the same 50-60,000 per year for at least the past 15 years. They would go years and years without a raise and when they do get a lousy 2.5% their pension contributions and health care costs wipe out any small gain.
-Yet another view
I taught in Shoreline; it's a great district and very difficult to get hired in. They only have two comprehensive high schools, and their two comprehensive middle schools are only grades 7 and 8.
The jobs just aren't there.
Will #waleg bail out school districts for approving unsustainable teacher contracts? Here is what Sen. Guy Palumbo told me today:
“I voted against the McCleary fix as it’s known. However, now that it’s the law of the land, and the Washington Supreme Court has ruled that we are meeting our constitutional duty, everybody has to implement the policy.
I am a big proponent of paying teachers a competitive wage because studies show that having a high quality teacher in the classroom is the most important thing we can do for students.
What concerns me are recent comments in the press from Superintendents who are acknowledging that they are making unsustainable budget decisions and that the legislature is going to have to bail them out in the next several years. I think that is a recipe for disaster.
There is no appetite in Olympia to bail out school boards and Superintendents who make bad budget decisions."
I hope those advocating for a pay now let the legislature fix it later have a plan in case the legislature doesn't do anything. And if the plan is a lawsuit, do you have the gen or fifteen years it might take?
Perhaps the governor? someone? Will step up and say that, "yes, we understand that some of these raises create projected deficits that, but for the fix that we planning for, would result in larger class sizes, fewer investments in technology and other much needed investments."
This is a legislature (and state) that has underfunded education in ways that has resulted in two Supreme Court rulings against them in the last fifty years and, most recently, a string of contempt orders.
I remain very suspicious of unnamed legislators' "promises" of a fix that are made in private when there are teachers walking in the streets, parents scrambling for childcare and school boards being pitted against one another.
We're very rapidly approaching a crises, please, get these fixers out in the open so we can comfortably move forward.
Right now I hear a lot of misleading quotes and potentially big misunderstandings from the teacher side and a lot of what seem like 1/2 truths from what feels like a very admin heavy central office.
Whose right? Either? Neither? Who knows. All I know is that nothing being negotiated seems likely to make much of an impact on my kids or many in the district.
Seattle Parent
-GLP
I'm of the amount of dollars the district has received from the state. I'm uncertain if the district received a one time infusion- or a yearly increase for salaries.
So, yes, with a loss of $81M levy dollars...a 10% raise could push the district into debt.
The district was predicting a $68M deficit. Not sure what numbers they used to calculate figure.
Fairmount Parent