Teacher contracts

[Teacher03]

I am so sorry to hear about your son's teachers. Good Special Ed teachers are so very rare and to let a good one go it terrible.

It is a very sad time for teachers in this country. I teach in NJ

ITA....I teach in a Catholic school and have been given a lay off notice along with all the teachers at my school. We were told we would be offered a contract if our budget was approved, but we haven't signed yet.

It's so sad that good teachers are let go, yet others who should have retired years ago will continue teaching.

 

[qtwns]

Cobb County(Marietta). We are losing over 550 teachers next year. It has been a blood bath at some of the schools.

I knew you were talking about Cobb before I even got to this post! I am so sorry this is affecting you like this. My nephew is special needs, and I agree that good special ed, especially those who work with those with profound needs, are so valuable.

BTW--I'm a Cobb teacher. I fortunately have a contract for next year, but I have no clue where they will place me. I am just sick that I may not get to stay with my school family and watch my kids and continue to nurture them even though they will be moving up a grade. I still keep close tabs on all my kids until they move on to High school...some just need that consistency in their lives. However, I thank God that I have a job and pray that this mess gets resolved somehow. It all just makes me sick and their thought process of how they Rif'ed teachers and how they are going to reassign others just makes very little sense.

 

[Carly_Roach]

Very sad situation. Unfortunately it is not uncommon. The impact of our ever losing economy always hurts those that need the help the most.

Their goal is $$ not the care and education of our children.

Exactly. And it'll get worse before it gets better. Low paying jobs for the majority of the people means fewer taxes available for education. The majority of property taxes are either dropping or just not getting paid because of houses in foreclosure, which means fewer taxes are available for education.

I'm sure there are many here who say they got a raise, or that they're paying higher taxes, or that that their property taxes are going up. But they don't realize that they are in the minority when compared to the thousands in their city who've lost their jobs, had to take a cut in pay, or have lost their homes. Remember, it's not just your (generic you) taxes that are supporting that school: it's the community's taxes. And when the community starts declining in jobs, pay and housing, the public services are hit the hardest.

For the past few years, our police and education funds have been doing what they can to move money so services wouldn't be impacted. But those rainy day funds are now gone. We've already had massive police cuts and this week we started hearing about student transportation cuts that will start with the next school year. Parents of children who ride the bus will have to find another way to get their kids to school. There just isn't any money for that anymore.

When the schools have no money, they have to start cutting. In this economy it is unfortunate, but the needs of the many must outweigh the needs of the few.

I was completely heartbroken and full of anger. The school board and superintendent got an UGLY and passionate earful from many, many parents but it was in vain. Ultimately all I could do was inform them that my child's needs WILL be met or there will be hell to pay. I also wrote Ms. M a letter of recommendation. My daughter is high functioning and working at grade level but her autism and ADHD make a "normal" classroom environment impossible. It does indeed take a very special person to work with our kids. I hope that both our kids' teachers land on their feet and quickly.

And just what hell to pay is the consequence if your child's needs aren't met? Do you intend to pay out of pocket for those needs to be met? Or are you talking about suing the school and taking more money away from other children who also have basic needs that need to be met?

Years ago, children with special needs were sent to special schools. They weren't mainstreamed at all. If this Recession/Depression continues and the average American's salary continues to decline, I can easily see us going back to that model.

How are they going to save money, easy, 30 years of experience in Special Ed costs them twice as much as someone with 0-1 year of experience. The job share situation means they pay work comp an unemployment on 2 people instead of one so they cut the salary in 1/2, cut unemployment and work comp in half and even if they have to put a little toward benefits, they are probably saving $100,000/year or more. Is it right, but what choice do they have with the budget cuts?

Exactly. The schools are simply doing what the corporations have been doing for decades: getting rid of the higher paid, experienced people and replacing them with cheaper, younger people. You should count yourselves lucky that your teachers haven't been replaced by outsourced labor from India or Mexico. Imagine classrooms being taught by a person on TV while part-time, no benefitted, minimum wage "keepers" stand there in person ready to handle discipline cases if necessary. Brrruuuh.

My only suggestion to the OP would be that if she's upset with what her public school is doing, then she should put her child into private school. It may seem unfair to be paying taxes for a service you're not using, but ultimately if you feel that service is going to be harmful to your child, then you must take steps to guarantee that your child's development is assisted with the best possible candidates. Public schools simply don't have the money they used to have and no amount of screaming, crying or threatening is going to make the dollars necessary to perform the service you want performed magically appear.

That's just the harsh reality of the America we're living in today. You'll have to find a way to deal with it.

 

[Forevryoung]

When the schools have no money, they have to start cutting. In this economy it is unfortunate, but the needs of the many must outweigh the needs of the few.

And just what hell to pay is the consequence if your child's needs aren't met? Do you intend to pay out of pocket for those needs to be met? Or are you talking about suing the school and taking more money away from other children who also have basic needs that need to be met?

Years ago, children with special needs were sent to special schools. They weren't mainstreamed at all. If this Recession/Depression continues and the average American's salary continues to decline, I can easily see us going back to that model.

My only suggestion to the OP would be that if she's upset with what her public school is doing, then she should put her child into private school. It may seem unfair to be paying taxes for a service you're not using, but ultimately if you feel that service is going to be harmful to your child, then you must take steps to guarantee that your child's development is assisted with the best possible candidates. Public schools simply don't have the money they used to have and no amount of screaming, crying or threatening is going to make the dollars necessary to perform the service you want performed magically appear.

That's just the harsh reality of the America we're living in today. You'll have to find a way to deal with it.

I deleted a chunk of the above post to take out what I wasn't responding to-

I work for a non-profit school for children with significant special needs (significant enough that the majority of our students live in our residential program). No parent pays to send their child where I work.

Who pays for it?
The state
The school districts

It's not cheaper to have a child attend our program. Most classrooms are 6:1:3 or 8:1:4 meaning 6/8 students, 1 teacher, and 3/4 aides. However, few programs like ours exist (I'm in NY) and we have students from all over the state come. Honestly, the tax payers are SAVING money providing services for their own students and keeping them in the community with supports.

When the state cuts our funding, we still have to provide the same level of care to the individuals as before (staffing etc). It's a constant juggle that I'm glad I'm not involved with.

Needs of the many vs needs of the few- this is horrifying. The need is that the many will still learn, they will still grow up and get jobs, they will learn to read and become independent adults without a year of busing or a year of traveling sports.

On the other hand, "the few" will regress significantly missing that year. Lets say it takes you 1 day to learn something new. For these kids it takes a year or 2 or 3 working at it every day. They might regress and no longer be potty trained or they may regress and no longer be as effective at communicating. They are working on basic life skills not calculus.

What would you do if your child's RIGHTS (not wants) weren't met that are protected by law (freedom of speech/religion for example) would you raise hell until the wrong was rectified or would you keep your mouth shut while it happened over and over again. It's the same for all parents, the needs and laws are just a little different.

Segregated schools??? will NEVER happen. For 2 reasons- 1) it's NOT cheaper and it's not better for society and 2) Separate is NOT equal remember

Rant over.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

...That's just the harsh reality of the America we're living in today...

This is a very well thought out post.

We have reached a point in America in which almost everyone has been asked to make sacrifices. The way that we react to those requests says a lot about us. Remember when JFK said:

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.

 

[daughtersrus]

Did the current teacher apply for the full-time position? In some contracts, current district employees get first chance at job openings.

DD just graduated in Dec with a SpEd degree. There are many teachers out there that are looking for this type of classroom setting.

I also have a DD with severe delays that is in a self-contained classroom (placed in a private school at the school district expense) so I understand you concern.

As for saving costs, it will probably be less expensive for the district to hire one teacher at a much lower salary than the other two, even once you add in benefits.

 

[gina2000]

I know 26,000 people are going to jump on me but I'm going to say it anyway. This is why unions exist in teaching. Municipalities cut costs whenever they can. Their biggest cost is salaries. The reality is that higher paid teachers will be cut regardless of their capabilities because a district can save money.

I know this is an incredibly unpopular opinion in America and on the DIS but sooner or later people will realize that entities can and will take advantage of non-revenue producing personnel every way they can in order to reduce expenses and/or generate profits. It is up to people to take care of people and ultimately that's why unions were put into place. The pendulum has swung away from unionization but sooner or later it will again swing in that direction.


JMH(and unpopular)O

 

[kirstenb1]

Minky I'm sorry. I cringe whenever I see teachers or aides swapped out in special ed classes. A lot of these kids really regress without that continuity.

 

[freckles and boo]

This is a very well thought out post.

We have reached a point in America in which almost everyone has been asked to make sacrifices. The way that we react to those requests says a lot about us. Remember when JFK said:

I make plenty of sacrifices. It is part and parcel of having a kid with a disability. I will remember what Eunice Kennedy Shriver did instead. She recognized and validated a group of people who had been marginalized by society. It appears that some would rather have the disabled conveniently out of sight and underserved, just like in the good old days.


To answer Carly Roach, yes I would sue, but only as a last resort. I have been a taxpaying homeowner in my community eight years longer than I have had children in my district. I will likely live here decades after they have graduated high school. I am invested in this community. I have a "typical" kid who has needs that must also be met. I am a rational and reasonable but I will not allow the school to fail in their duty to educate my children. It is non-negotiable. Our district is solvent. They have received "Financial Recognition" from the state. They have enough in unrestricted funds to pay salaries for six years even if they never receive another dime from the state of Illinois in that time. Our district has served both my children very, very well up to this point. They are fully capable of continuing to do so.

 

[snarlingcoyote]

Back in the early nineties, I read a study that didn't get a lot of attention. This study looked at how much taxpayers were willing to pay into schools over time, adjusted for inflation, and then looked at how much schools cost, over time.

What the study found was that taxpayers (John Q. Public) were willing to pay about the same amount every year and no more. Schools, however, cost a lot more as the years went on. It wasn't teacher salaries or administrator salaries or technology that caused the increase. It was special ed. So special ed, as it was mandated, got the money at the expense of every other area of the school.

The authors of the study had no reccomendation, and ths results of the study were something most educators don't like to think about, soooo. . .

What this means? I don't know. But I think there are three alternatives:

1. Parents with money send their kids to private schools unless their kids are disabled, then they school-shop for the neighborhoods with the best special eds and move there. Meanwhile, this population shift means that the average school has less money, as the people in that district have no vested interest in keeping taxes high enough to support the school. I see this one occurring all over the place.

2. The public is educated on why they need to pay higher taxes to support a good public school and the taxes are brought up as a benefit to the community and to home prices and to the future of kids. I live in a town where this has happened.

3. We cut out special ed or defund it. We make special ed cheaper so that we can afford to run the rest of the school. This is a horrifying alternative, but sadly is, I think, the wall that some school boards are up against.

Those are the alternatives I see. . .anyone have any others?

 

[Carly_Roach]

What would you do if your child's RIGHTS (not wants) weren't met that are protected by law (freedom of speech/religion for example) would you raise hell until the wrong was rectified or would you keep your mouth shut while it happened over and over again.

RIGHTS are one thing. I believe we, as Americans, are guaranteed specific rights such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. NOTE: pursuit of happiness - not guaranteed happiness.

I have and do raise hell when American RIGHTS and LIBERTIES are trampled on. I've frequently held forth on this very board about the Patriot Act and how people are giving up freedom for a perception of safety. How Americans are giving up personal liberties of everyone because the liberties in question aren't necessarily liberties that the giver-uppers are exercising.

However, you're confusing a RIGHT with a PRIVILEGE when it comes to education in this country. Americans have enjoyed the PRIVILEGE of free education in grades 1 through 12 for about a hundred and fifty years or so. We decided that, as a country, we'll pay taxes to ensure that a basic education is given to our children. If/when the situation gets so bad that we can no longer afford to fund that PRIVILEGE, then it will have to reduced and/or eliminated.

These are merely the facts of life. If you don't have the money for something, you don't get the something.

What you find horrifying is what many of us have already gotten used to and have learned how to live with for the past decade. We've learned how to do without because we HAD to. And, yes, it's toughened us up a bit and taught us what necessities REALLY are: food, shelter, clothing.

All the yelling, vehement outrage and demanding justice isn't going to make the dollars magically appear to fund whatever program needs funding. I speak from experience. Been there. Done that. Couldn't afford the T-shirt.

And if it's a choice of X many dollars to go to either the one or two kids who may regress to not being potty-trained again if they don't have a teacher and three aids coaching them or the 50+ kids who won't learn how to multiply fractions because they don't have a teacher who has the time to teach them that, then I'm afraid I'm going to agree that the dollars should go to the majority of the kids.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

 

[Mrs.Reese]

I know 26,000 people are going to jump on me but I'm going to say it anyway. This is why unions exist in teaching. Municipalities cut costs whenever they can. Their biggest cost is salaries. The reality is that higher paid teachers will be cut regardless of their capabilities because a district can save money.

I know this is an incredibly unpopular opinion in America and on the DIS but sooner or later people will realize that entities can and will take advantage of non-revenue producing personnel every way they can in order to reduce expenses and/or generate profits. It is up to people to take care of people and ultimately that's why unions were put into place. The pendulum has swung away from unionization but sooner or later it will again swing in that direction.


JMH(and unpopular)O

As a moderate/severe self-contained Special Educator, I totally agree. The "terrible" union has protected me from liable, slander and retaliation from administrators and parents over the years. I highly doubt that I would be willing to keep teaching what is considered to be a "high risk" group if I did not have representation. Without seniority, school districts would continually cut experienced teachers, advanced degrees to keep costs down.

 

[Carly_Roach]

To answer Carly Roach, yes I would sue, but only as a last resort. I have been a taxpaying homeowner in my community eight years longer than I have had children in my district. I will likely live here decades after they have graduated high school. I am invested in this community. I have a "typical" kid who has needs that must also be met. I am a rational and reasonable but I will not allow the school to fail in their duty to educate my children. It is non-negotiable. Our district is solvent. They have received "Financial Recognition" from the state. They have enough in unrestricted funds to pay salaries for six years even if they never receive another dime from the state of Illinois in that time. Our district has served both my children very, very well up to this point. They are fully capable of continuing to do so.

From what I can tell, the schools are upholding their "duty" to educate children every year when another class graduates. You would lose that lawsuit based on that premise. As I said above, no one is guaranteed that their disabled child has a right to "special" education. Schools were created to educate the masses, not the minority.

It wasn't teacher salaries or administrator salaries or technology that caused the increase. It was special ed. So special ed, as it was mandated, got the money at the expense of every other area of the school.

And I believe that as money gets tighter and tighter in the average district, special ed will have to take the cut. Sad, yes. But unfortunately, something has to give in favor of the gross majority of students where the averages of producing assets to help re-grow our country is far higher than what might or might not come out of the kids in the special ed programs.

I'm sure there are those who think that is an insult, but it is not meant as one. It's only meant as a cold, hard, realistic look at what life in these United States has become. If you're chosing between food and special ed, special ed's gotta go. If you're chosing between water and special ed, special ed has gotta go. If you're choosing between textbooks for 100's of students or 2 aides for a special ed class, then special ed has gotta go.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

I make plenty of sacrifices...

Everyone does, and is (with few exceptions). This is what happens during severe economic downturns. It is not making light of your concerns, simply a statement of fact.

It is sad that things like this are being cut. I am not sure how each school district made their decision. Some are cutting sports, others are cutting music programs, and some are cutting special education. But when there isn't enough money, cuts have to be made somewhere.

IMO, the cuts should come mostly from administrative staff. In NJ, we could eliminate over 50% of our state's school administrative costs by combining school districts. Sadly, this is not even being considered.

 

[daughtersrus]

And just what hell to pay is the consequence if your child's needs aren't met? Do you intend to pay out of pocket for those needs to be met? Or are you talking about suing the school and taking more money away from other children who also have basic needs that need to be met?

The school district is responsible to provide a "free and appropriate education". If they can not do that within their school buildings, they are financially responsible to provide it out of their district.

Years ago, children with special needs were sent to special schools. They weren't mainstreamed at all. If this Recession/Depression continues and the average American's salary continues to decline, I can easily see us going back to that model.

Do you realize that doing this would cost the school district much more money in tuition and transportation?


My only suggestion to the OP would be that if she's upset with what her public school is doing, then she should put her child into private school. It may seem unfair to be paying taxes for a service you're not using, but ultimately if you feel that service is going to be harmful to your child, then you must take steps to guarantee that your child's development is assisted with the best possible candidates. Public schools simply don't have the money they used to have and no amount of screaming, crying or threatening is going to make the dollars necessary to perform the service you want performed magically appear.


Again, it would be up to the school district to cover the cost if they are not able to provide FAPE within the district

From what I can tell, the schools are upholding their "duty" to educate children every year when another class graduates. You would lose that lawsuit based on that premise. As I said above, no one is guaranteed that their disabled child has a right to "special" education. Schools were created to educate the masses, not the minority.

I believe that you are incorrect. Their are plenty of cases that have gone to court and sided against the school district and in favor of the student.

And I believe that as money gets tighter and tighter in the average district, special ed will have to take the cut. Sad, yes. But unfortunately, something has to give in favor of the gross majority of students where the averages of producing assets to help re-grow our country is far higher than what might or might not come out of the kids in the special ed programs.

Again, laws would have to be changed not only at federal levels and I just don't see that happening. What most people don't realize is that SpEd is not a place, it is a service. There are students receiving services under SpEd laws in GenEd classes. Some of them are getting accommodations like extra time for tests, using a lap-top instead of writing, having someone read them the test, going to an alternate location to take a test... are you saying that we should take all away all of the supports that help make them productive members of society?


I'm sure there are those who think that is an insult, but it is not meant as one. It's only meant as a cold, hard, realistic look at what life in these United States has become. If you're chosing between food and special ed, special ed's gotta go.If you're chosing between water and special ed, special ed has gotta go. If you're choosing between textbooks for 100's of students or 2 aides for a special ed class, then special ed has gotta go.

I'm sorry but I just don't agree with you. If the GenEd student has the right to be in school, so should the SpEd student. In the long run, it may end up costing the taxpayers less money to educate these people than it would cost to provide care for them for the rest of their lives.

As the law stands now, parents of SpEd students can refuse all services and have their child educated in the GenEd classroom. Can you imagine what that would do for test scores to have all of these children in the GenEd classroom?

It is sad that things like this are being cut. I am not sure how each school district made their decision. Some are cutting sports, others are cutting music programs, and some are cutting special education. But when there isn't enough money, cuts have to be made somewhere.

The difference is that there are laws in place so that SpEd students receive the services that they need to get FAPE. I could be wrong, but I dont' believe that there are laws to ensure that students have music and sports programs

IMO, the cuts should come mostly from administrative staff. In NJ, we could eliminate over 50% of our state's school administrative costs by combining school districts. Sadly, this is not even being considered.

I agree that there is a lot of money spent at the administrative levels. For example, or Super. (suburban school district with about 18,000 students) has a salary of close to $300,000 and a travel expense account around $70,000. His travel expenses would cover 1 1/2 teachers or 3 1/2 para-pro jobs.

My responses are in blue.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

The difference is that there are laws in place so that SpEd students receive the services that they need to get FAPE. I could be wrong, but I dont' believe that there are laws to ensure that students have music and sports programs...

While I am not familiar with the letter of these laws, I assume that the school boards have taken these laws into account. Now, that may be a stretch.

If they have not taken those laws into account, they will be sued. But, even if they are sued, how can they provide something if they lack funds? The entities that wrote the laws have cut funding. I kinda hope for suits in NJ to force the schools to consolidate, but this state is too corrupt for me to believe in change.

 

[Luv Bunnies]

As I said above, no one is guaranteed that their disabled child has a right to "special" education. Schools were created to educate the masses, not the minority.

Actually, federal law mandates that all kids receive a free and appropriate education. For disabled kids, an appropriate education includes whatever accommodations are necessary to help them function in a classroom and learn the requried material. This could include smaller class sizes, a higher adult to student ratio, use of assistive devices, classrooms designed with quiet areas for students to take breaks, specially-designed cirriculum to address student needs and many other "special" accommodations. So, according to the law, yes, disabled children do, in fact, have a right to "special education."

In regard to the above quoted statement, schools were created to educate each and every student whether disabled or not. Due to his Asperger's, my son cannot function in a traditional classroom setting along with the "masses." I fully expect and am entitled under the law to have him educated in a "special" setting where his needs can be addressed. My son has the right to be allowed to reach his full potential and I will continue to fight for his legal right to special education.

 

[chicagodisneyfan]

Actually, federal law mandates that all kids receive a free and appropriate education. For disabled kids, an appropriate education includes whatever accommodations are necessary to help them function in a classroom and learn the requried material. This could include smaller class sizes, a higher adult to student ratio, use of assistive devices, classrooms designed with quiet areas for students to take breaks, specially-designed cirriculum to address student needs and many other "special" accommodations. So, according to the law, yes, disabled children do, in fact, have a right to "special education."

And Bravo to that law - whatever accommodations ... learn the required material.

The problem is the OPs son is severely mentally handicapped - the OP herself has described him as a 1 year old. So WHAT the heck is he doing in a school? Reading, writing - nope. Is he learning the required material - nope. Will he ever live on his own and have a job - nope.

So please tell me why are we spending limited funds on him?

If the OP is so concerned about her son - why not home school?

 

[Luv Bunnies]

And Bravo to that law - whatever accommodations ... learn the required material.

The problem is the OPs son is severely mentally handicapped - the OP herself has described him as a 1 year old. So WHAT the heck is he doing in a school? Reading, writing - nope. Is he learning the required material - nope. Will he ever live on his own and have a job - nope.

So please tell me why are we spending limited funds on him?

If the OP is so concerned about her son - why not home school?

Why spend limited funds on him? Because he's a human being. He's a child who is entitled by law to receive a free and appropriate education. Even if the traditional educational model doesn't suit him (reading, writing, math), there are things that he can learn like life skills. I'm sure the OP can give us more insight into what he's taught at school and what kind of progress he's made. But every single child is entitled to reach his or her full potential. And every single child is worth the investment!

 

[daughtersrus]

And Bravo to that law - whatever accommodations ... learn the required material.

The problem is the OPs son is severely mentally handicapped - the OP herself has described him as a 1 year old. So WHAT the heck is he doing in a school? Reading, writing - nope. Is he learning the required material - nope. Will he ever live on his own and have a job - nope.

So please tell me why are we spending limited funds on him?

If the OP is so concerned about her son - why not home school?

He may be learning life skills like how to communicate or how to feed himself. It's important to remember that education does not always equal academics.

Also, the taxpayers fund the education of special needs children from birth through state EI programs. Once they child turns 3yo, the responsibility shifts to the school district.