Bargaining Update #4: Student Enrichment Programs
OEA Team Fights To Guarantee Student Enrichment Programs
Last month, as reported in OEA Bargaining Update Issue 3, the State Administration (SA) bargaining team proposed cutting salaries, eliminating staffed elementary enrichment prep, and increasing workload in secondary schools. In last week’s bargaining they continued down that road. While they may say that quality public education is a civil right, their number one priority and their main concern is cutting public education spending–at the expense of students, staff, and the community. Any lingering doubts we had were dispelled in last week’s exchange on staffed preparation periods for student and program enrichment.
We asked the State Administration team how they could justify their demand to eliminate staffed enrichment preparation periods, when this would be doubly harmful to students:
By eliminating preparation time elementary school teachers need to prepare lessons and to go over student work.
By eliminating vital enrichment programs such as physical education and sports; computer activities; art; music; and other academic support and intervention programs.
How did the State Administration team defend their position? They chanted the mantra we will hear throughout bargaining: “Sorry, can’t afford that!”
Let’s be clear. The elimination of enrichment programs and activities is especially harmful to low-performing schools serving low-income students. Schools serving more affluent students may be able to raise funds from parents and other community members for supplementary staff and enrichment activities–but schools serving low-income areas can’t. That’s why the January 2006 report issued by the neutral Fact-Finder in the last contract round said that the district’s elimination of staffed enrichment preparation gave “the appearance and perception of discrimination”. We agree. Far from assuring Oakland students their right to a quality public education, the district and the state are trying to deny students this fundamental civil right.
Additional Areas in Article 10 Discussed (we agreed to discuss Article 10 first)
Compensation for Additional Hours Worked: To limit the seemingly endless administrative demands on OEA members’ time, and to guarantee that time worked is compensated fairly, we proposed that any hours worked outside the regular work day (above the five additional monthly hours specified in the contract) must be voluntary and must be paid at the member’s per diem rate. The SA team would not agree. (“Sorry, can’t afford that!”)
Kindergarten school day: We proposed an extended day schedule (4 hours 30 minutes) for kindergarten students. (It’s currently a full day, which means kindergartners must go through a full 6-hour instructional day with no naps and no down time). The district has asked for additional time to consider and respond.
Speech and language therapists; social workers: OEA and OUSD signed a memorandum of understanding last year, which put Speech and Language Therapists on the Psychologists salary schedule; both teams therefore agreed to incorporate this into the new contract. The OEA proposed that Social Workers have a similar extended work day and work year and be placed on this same salary schedule. The OUSD team would agree to lengthen the work day to seven hours, but wants to base the salary on the K12 teacher schedule.
