Tag Archives: contracts

SF educators to receive raises sooner

I have heard from many constituents regarding UESF’s grievance with the school district on the implementation schedule of wage increases agreed-upon as part of the three-year contract expiring June 30, 2017.

Good news: the school district and UESF have agreed to accelerate the schedule of raises so that all educators represented by UESF will receive a five percent raise starting with their first regularly-scheduled paycheck after July 1, 2016. Here is the Superintendent’s announcement:

We are all so deeply grateful for the powerful and critically important work our teachers, counselors, paraprofessionals, and other UESF members do every day for our students. That is why I wanted to take this opportunity to share some great news with all of you, even though it directly impacts only UESF members.

SFUSD and UESF have reached an agreement today to move the original January 2017 raise to the beginning of the 2016-2017 school year. Given this decision, every UESF member will receive a 5% raise at the start of the school year, effectively moving the planned second salary increment of 2.25% up by six (6) months.  The raises will be implemented in the first paycheck of the school year for all UESF members, both classified and certificated. Originally, the contract called for a 2.75% raise for the pay period starting in July 2016 and a 2.25% raise for the pay period starting in January 2017.

. . .  The agreement effectively settles the existing grievances related to the timing of the second salary increment to the mutual satisfaction of both the Union and the District.

As the school year comes to a close, SFUSD was able to find cost savings and wanted to contribute these savings to as many employees’ salaries as possible.  This agreement will, in effect, result in 6 more months of increased salaries than previously planned.

We know this is a challenging time to afford living in the Bay Area. The staggered pay schedule that has been in effect for more than 20 years resulted in confusion this winter as some UESF employees received their raises in January and some in February. Unfortunately, this placed added stress on those teachers who thought they would see their increase earlier in the calendar year.

In addition to helping our valued current UESF members start next school year with a higher base salary, we hope this pay increase acceleration will also help us address our projected recruitment challenge due to the national teacher shortage. Higher bottom line salaries for UESF members starting in July 2016 will hopefully entice more teacher candidates and others as they explore their options.

Advertisements

Recap: First meeting of the 2012-13 school year

Super short meeting to open the 2012-13 school year: the meeting started at 6:20 p.m. and was over by 7:30 p.m. There were a few contracts on the agenda, most notably a group of contracts valued at over $15 million for non-public school tuition or non-public agency fees paid to educate students with disabilities placed out of district (either as a result of lawsuits or mutual agreement between the district and the child’s parents/guardians). Other contracts of note:

  • Partners in School Innovation – $468,000 to provide professional development for teachers in the Bayview and Mission Superintendent’s Zone schools;
  • UCSF – $200,000 to provide doctors and athletic trainers for interscholastic athletic events;
  • Language Bank – $190,000 to provide translation and interpretation services at IEP meetings and parent trainings;
  • Stetson & Associates – $135,000 to provide professional development for teachers to increase their knowledge of inclusive practices for students.

In other news, Commissioner Fewer introduced a resolution calling for one early release day per week, where — starting this school year — students would be dismissed one hour early on Wednesdays in order to give teachers common planning and professional development time.  That one-hour loss of instructional time would be made up by “banking” 15 minutes per day — usually accomplished by shortening recess/lunch times or adding a few more minutes at the beginning or end of a day.  The proposal will be heard in committee early next month, then return to the full Board for a vote (assuming there are no additional changes or research required by district staff) in late September or early October. 

Many of the middle schools already have two “late start” days per month — students arrive at school one hour later, affording time for professional development or common planning by teachers.

Superintendent  Carranza gave upbeat opening remarks, discussing the successful Administrator Institute two weeks ago, his expectations that our district’s showing on the STAR (CST) test (results will be available August 31) will be very strong, and announcing his new Twitter handle: @SFUSD_Supe.

Are you ready for school to start? I am. School starts this coming Monday, August 20 — five days and counting!

Recap: Sept. 14 Board meeting

At tonight’s regularly scheduled Board meeting, Commissioners heard a presentation on plans for the new Superintendent’s Zone — comprised of 15 of our lowest-performing schools. Assistant Superintendent Patricia Gray supervises the Bayview portion of the Superintendent’s Zone, which includes Bret Hart ES, Carver ES, Drew ES, Malcolm X ES, Willie Brown College Prep, Paul Revere (which is actually in Bernal Heights), and Thurgood Marshall HS.  Assistant Superintendent Guadalupe Guerrero supervises the Mission portion of the zone, which includes Bryant ES, Chavez ES, Leonard Flynn ES, John Muir ES (which is actually in the Western Addition), Everett MS, Mann MS, Mission HS, and John O’Connell HS.

Many of these schools are eligible for the $45 million in SIG money that was authorized by the state Board of Education several weeks ago; the district’s presentation was a high-level overview of how that money will be spent, including new instructional and assessment strategies; additional staff to focus on parent and community engagement; and staff to coordinate the services of the many nonprofits also working with students and families at these sites.  All of the plans sound good, but of course we have seen many reform agendas before in this district — the proof will have to be in the results.

Also of note: a renewal of the controversial National Urban Alliance professional development contract was on tonight’s agenda — $250,000 in additional services to staff at seven or eight schools. Readers of this blog might remember that I voted against the NUA contract when it was first brought forward in 2009, and despite some positive testimonials from teachers and administrators, I voted against it again. This time, however, due to the absence of several board members, the final vote tally was 3 votes in favor (Fewer, Kim and Yee) and 2 votes against (Wynns, Norton). Since three votes is not a majority of the Board, the motion failed, and the Superintendent will have to bring the contract back to the Board at a future meeting (where I will vote against it again). Why am I opposed to this contract? For one thing, despite the testimonials, some staff who have been through the training have privately told me they found it to be so-so. For another, the NUA consultants charge very high daily rates. Third, the funding source for this training is unrestricted — meaning it can go towards any use, and I’m not sure we should be spending unrestricted funds on an expensive program that gets mixed reviews. Finally, and most important, the schools currently receiving the program are not our priority schools!  Only one, Willie Brown, is located in the Superintendent’s Zone (the priority area we had just heard all about earlier), and we’ve already said we’re closing down Willie Brown at the end of this school year. Enough said.

Finally, the Board had a good discussion about the administrative approval limits and procedures. Late last year, the Board raised the limit for administrative (i.e., bypassing the Board) approval of contracts from $8,000 to $25,000, and agreed to eventually consider raising the limit to $75,000.  Because board members have noticed a few recurring issues, the discussion will go to the next Rules Committee so that the legal department can review the language with us and close any  loopholes that exist.