From the St. Petersburg Times, April 15, 2010
"The selection of Tallahassee Community College president Bill Law this week as the new president for St. Petersburg College was predictable, safe and uninspiring. Now Gov. Charlie Crist should be more creative and bring some fresh faces to the college's board of trustees. As long as the college is embarking on a new era of leadership, there should be a clean sweep at the top.
For years, the trustees were practically hand-picked by former president Carl Kuttler and acted as his rubber stamp. The college flourished, but there were times when Kuttler should have been reined in by more independent-minded trustees. Kuttler's incredible demands for his retirement package and the initial willingness of some trustees to write him an unreasonably large check crystalized just how out of balance the relationship had become.
Crist has an opportunity next month to start overhauling the board of trustees when the terms are up for W. Richard Johnston and Deveron Gibbons. Johnston has served more than 20 years over two different stints and was even on the board when Kuttler was hired. Gibbons has served just four years, but he has not been the most diligent or effective trustee. He wound up on the board primarily because of his close ties to former St. Petersburg Mayor Rick Baker, which created a mess when Baker did not endorse Gibbons in last year's mayoral primary and Gibbons did not support Baker for the St. Petersburg College presidency.
Next year, a new governor can replace Evelyn Bilirakis, the wife of the former congressman and mother of a current one, and Ken Burke, who can devote his full attention to his day job as clerk of court. Both have been trustees for more than a decade.
Now is the time for the governor to make appointments based less on political patronage and more on the qualities of leaders who can offer more aggressive oversight and better match the college's priorities with the community's needs. Law comes into the job facing a divided faculty and the long shadow of his larger-than-life predecessor. At 61, he is not likely to have a particularly long run as president. St. Petersburg College needs a strong board of trustees with more vision to ensure its long-term future is bright."
Friday, April 16, 2010
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Gov. Crist Vetoes Controversial Teacher Bill
By Gary Fineout, 04/15/2010 - 12:59 PM
Gov. Charlie Crist on Thursday vetoed SB 6, the controversial measure that would strip job protections from teachers.
Crist publicly announced his veto at a noon press conference just outside his office which has been bombarded with calls and e-mails from teachers across the state.
The governor said he based his veto on several reasons, including the speed at which the bill moved through the Legislature and the fact that House Republicans refused to consider any amendments on the bill once it reached the full House.
Crist also said it would place the jobs of teachers in jeopardy and he said he was concerned about how it would impact special education teachers who would be evaluated based on the results of a high stakes test.
It's not clear yet how lawmakers plan to react, although a veto override would appear out of the question since the measure was opposed by Democrats and a handful of Republicans. It takes a two-thirds vote for an override.
But there could be a backlash against Crist that could affect how the session ends over the next two weeks.
Gov. Charlie Crist on Thursday vetoed SB 6, the controversial measure that would strip job protections from teachers.
Crist publicly announced his veto at a noon press conference just outside his office which has been bombarded with calls and e-mails from teachers across the state.
The governor said he based his veto on several reasons, including the speed at which the bill moved through the Legislature and the fact that House Republicans refused to consider any amendments on the bill once it reached the full House.
Crist also said it would place the jobs of teachers in jeopardy and he said he was concerned about how it would impact special education teachers who would be evaluated based on the results of a high stakes test.
It's not clear yet how lawmakers plan to react, although a veto override would appear out of the question since the measure was opposed by Democrats and a handful of Republicans. It takes a two-thirds vote for an override.
But there could be a backlash against Crist that could affect how the session ends over the next two weeks.
Friday, April 9, 2010
MEET WITH REP. MURZIN ABOUT YOUR RETIREMENT CONCERNS
Rep. Murzin invites public to meet him at Jerry's Cajun Café on April 10th
Pensacola, Florida- State Rep. Dave Murzin invites the public to stop by and meet him on Saturday, April 10th, between noon and 5 p.m. Rep. Murzin wants to give his constituents a chance to informally meet with him both as a state Representative and as a candidate for the State Senate, District 2, currently held by Sen. Durrell Peaden.
Murzin will be stationed at a table on the front porch of Jerry's Cajun Café at 6205 N 9th Avenue, Pensacola, Florida. The public is encouraged to stop by between noon and 5 p.m.
Pensacola, Florida- State Rep. Dave Murzin invites the public to stop by and meet him on Saturday, April 10th, between noon and 5 p.m. Rep. Murzin wants to give his constituents a chance to informally meet with him both as a state Representative and as a candidate for the State Senate, District 2, currently held by Sen. Durrell Peaden.
Murzin will be stationed at a table on the front porch of Jerry's Cajun Café at 6205 N 9th Avenue, Pensacola, Florida. The public is encouraged to stop by between noon and 5 p.m.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
A LETTER FROM A PJCFA MEMBER TO SENATOR GAETZ
Dear Senator Gaetz,
I see you are one of the sponsors of Senate Bill 6, so I was wondering if you could explain the rationale behind the bill. As I understand it, the only thing that would determine teacher pay would be student performance on standardized tests. I do understand the desire to ensure students receive a quality education and the desire to somehow rate teacher performance, but, honestly, student test scores are not indicative of either. I don't know when the last time was that you were in a classroom, but I can tell you from experience that sometimes you get a brilliant group of students and other times you get a, well, less-than-brilliant group. Sometimes they "get it" right away and sometimes you can try over and over again and they just don't understand. Even when you have a great class of students there are days they just aren't performing as well and if that day happens to be test day.....
I know you've probably heard this before, but when you make standardized testing the goal, the only thing that happens is that the teacher teaches the test. It'll get worse if you tie teacher pay to test scores. You'll end up making schools "boot camps" that train students in nothing but test taking. Is that really what you're shooting for?
I'm also wondering what you plan to do about "special area" teachers - music, drama, art, etc. Those teachers do not have a class assigned to them; they teach all students in the school. How can you possibly tie student scores to their pay?
I've read that the bill will not reward teachers for obtaining national certification or higher degrees. I don't understand this rationale at all. On the one hand you want teachers to be better, but on the other you're telling them that if they try to become better they won't get rewarded. Every other state in the union offers such incentives, but you're trying to remove them.
Senator, perhaps you should take the time to visit any classroom on any day and actually watch how hard teachers work. They do so day after day, without complaint about low pay, conditions, schedules, etc. These are dedicated people whose reward is the education of their students. Are there "bad" teachers out there? Probably, but there are far more great teachers and this bill will punish more people than it will help. Let's face it, there are bad police, fire fighters, legislators, military, etc. There are means to get rid of poor teachers already in place, just as there are ways to get rid of any other under performer; you just have to employ the means to get rid of them.
Thank you for taking the time to read my email.
Sincerely,
I see you are one of the sponsors of Senate Bill 6, so I was wondering if you could explain the rationale behind the bill. As I understand it, the only thing that would determine teacher pay would be student performance on standardized tests. I do understand the desire to ensure students receive a quality education and the desire to somehow rate teacher performance, but, honestly, student test scores are not indicative of either. I don't know when the last time was that you were in a classroom, but I can tell you from experience that sometimes you get a brilliant group of students and other times you get a, well, less-than-brilliant group. Sometimes they "get it" right away and sometimes you can try over and over again and they just don't understand. Even when you have a great class of students there are days they just aren't performing as well and if that day happens to be test day.....
I know you've probably heard this before, but when you make standardized testing the goal, the only thing that happens is that the teacher teaches the test. It'll get worse if you tie teacher pay to test scores. You'll end up making schools "boot camps" that train students in nothing but test taking. Is that really what you're shooting for?
I'm also wondering what you plan to do about "special area" teachers - music, drama, art, etc. Those teachers do not have a class assigned to them; they teach all students in the school. How can you possibly tie student scores to their pay?
I've read that the bill will not reward teachers for obtaining national certification or higher degrees. I don't understand this rationale at all. On the one hand you want teachers to be better, but on the other you're telling them that if they try to become better they won't get rewarded. Every other state in the union offers such incentives, but you're trying to remove them.
Senator, perhaps you should take the time to visit any classroom on any day and actually watch how hard teachers work. They do so day after day, without complaint about low pay, conditions, schedules, etc. These are dedicated people whose reward is the education of their students. Are there "bad" teachers out there? Probably, but there are far more great teachers and this bill will punish more people than it will help. Let's face it, there are bad police, fire fighters, legislators, military, etc. There are means to get rid of poor teachers already in place, just as there are ways to get rid of any other under performer; you just have to employ the means to get rid of them.
Thank you for taking the time to read my email.
Sincerely,
CONTACT LEGISLATORS NOW
Today SB passed the Senate by a vote of 21 to 14 – Four Republicans joined the Democrats in voting NO! Be sure to thank Republican Senators Dean, Dockery, Jones and Villalobos for standing up against the Republican Party of Florida Chair and sponsor of the bill John Thrasher for their courageous vote. We have seen before the wrath that going against the Party can bring upon members. These folks deserve our thanks and support for doing the right thing. We also thank the Senate Democrats for standing strong for us against this bill.
Now we move to the House …
So far PKP2 (which will be numbered after it passes the committee) looks very similar to SB 6. We will be working today with the House Republicans and Democrats to attempt to amend the House version, but we need to turn up the volume in the House. The proposed committee bill will be heard Thursday in the House Education PreK-12 Policy Committee- please contact the following members and urge them to vote against the House version of SB6.
Legg, John (R) Chair
Fresen, Erik (R) Vice Chair
Bullard, Dwight M. (D) Democratic Ranking Member
Burgin, Rachel V. (R)
Coley, Marti (R)
Flores, Anitere (R)
Gonzalez, Eduardo (R)
Jones, Mia L. (D)
Kiar, Martin David (D)
Plakon, Scott (R)
Rader, Kevin J. G. (D)
Schwartz, Elaine J. (D)
Stargel, Kelli (R)
Weinstein, Michael B. (R)
Now we move to the House …
So far PKP2 (which will be numbered after it passes the committee) looks very similar to SB 6. We will be working today with the House Republicans and Democrats to attempt to amend the House version, but we need to turn up the volume in the House. The proposed committee bill will be heard Thursday in the House Education PreK-12 Policy Committee- please contact the following members and urge them to vote against the House version of SB6.
Legg, John (R) Chair
Fresen, Erik (R) Vice Chair
Bullard, Dwight M. (D) Democratic Ranking Member
Burgin, Rachel V. (R)
Coley, Marti (R)
Flores, Anitere (R)
Gonzalez, Eduardo (R)
Jones, Mia L. (D)
Kiar, Martin David (D)
Plakon, Scott (R)
Rader, Kevin J. G. (D)
Schwartz, Elaine J. (D)
Stargel, Kelli (R)
Weinstein, Michael B. (R)
Monday, March 22, 2010
YOUR RETIREMENT INCOME IS IN DANGER
A Message from UFF President Tom Auxter:
Dear Colleague:
Legislative leaders are moving rapidly to pass a bill, HB 1319 (Grady), that could cut your Florida Retirement System pension in half. By changing rules about how pensions are calculated, they can cut your average yearly pension from $30,000 to $15,000, for example. Tell your legislators to vote against HB 1319. (See below for details.)
Legislators are also preparing to destroy tenure (continuing contracts) for K-12 teachers when they vote on Senate bill 6. This bill abolishes continuing contracts for teachers (earned after a probationary period), places them on annual contracts, and makes both reappointment and pay raises contingent on test scores of students. School boards will actually be punished in funding if they pay teachers more for earning advanced degrees rather than rewarding teachers for test scores of students. Tell your legislators to vote against SB 6.
Over time, the economic effect of SB 6 will be to eliminate graduate programs in education when funding is taken away for advanced degrees, and make it impossible to adequately fund undergraduate education degrees by imposing unfunded mandates (expensive reporting mechanisms) to check on test scores of graduates. In other words, it is an attack on the funding and potential enrollment in public universities and colleges at the same time that it is an attack on teacher tenure and professional achievement. (See below for details.)
It severely jeopardizes recruitment of both faculty and teachers when legislators strip away professional compensation and restrict the academic freedom of educators by abolishing tenure. Moreover, if legislators abolish tenure for K-12 now and get away with it without resistance, we can expect higher education will be next -- losing tenure and finding ourselves subjected to the latest testing scheme to decide if we have the professional standing to continue.
Contact legislators now to stop attacks on the conditions of employment of educators. The loss of professional standards now will make it impossible for us to retain and recruit both teachers and faculty in the future.
Sincerely,
Tom Auxter
President, United Faculty of Florida
Contact legislative leaders today
Say NO to SB 6 and FRS changes
Senate Contact
Senate President Jeff Atwater
Capitol Office 850-487-5229
District Office 561-625-5101
House Contact
House Speaker Larry Cretul
Capitol Office 850-488-1450
District Office 352-873-6564
Public Employee Retirement and FRS Issues
Oppose these Retirement Bills: HB 1319 by Rep. Grady, R-76, Naples
HB 1543 by Rep. Zapata, R-119,-Miami
SB 1902 by Sen. Bennett, R-21, Bradenton
These bills are being moved onto a fast track for passage in the 2010 Florida Legislative Session. One of these bills is scheduled to be voted on in the House Governmental Affairs Policy Committee next week -- HB 1319, by Rep Grady. We are hearing that an amendment is being drafted that will make the bill effective immediately (instead of the bill’s current effective date of 7/01/2011).
HB 1319 makes the following changes:
• Employees hired on or after 7/01/2011, and employees entering DROP on or after 7/01/2011, will be required to pay 1% of gross salary as contribution to FRS
• The definition of average final salary calculation is changed from the highest five years to the average of total career service and salary
• Overtime and other types of compensation (such as leave payouts) may not be included in pension calculations
• Public employees enrolled in the Regular Class of FRS could retire after 33 years instead of the current 30 years (effective 7/01/2011)
• For public employees enrolled in the Regular Class of FRS, the retirement age would rise to 65 years from the current 62 years
• For public employees enrolled in the Regular Class of FRS, the FRS accrual rate is lowered to 1.44% from the current 1.6% (effective 9/30/2011)
• Vesting (eligibility for retirement) changes as follows (effective 7/01/2011):
o From 6 years and age 62, to 6 years and age 65
o From 30 years at any age, to 33 years at any age
• Employees retiring on or after July 1, 2010 may not exceed 80% of their average final compensation (current law: may not exceed 100%)
The sponsors of these bills claim that revising FRS and public employee retirement benefits would save the state money during this time of declining revenues and the need to fund a $3 billion budget deficit. Sponsors of this legislation believe that changes to the Florida Retirement System (FRS) could reduce costs to Florida’s budget.
HB 1319 would result in out-of-pocket costs for public education employees who would suffer reduction of their actual retirement benefit the retiree receives. Further, HB 1319 would result in out-of-pocket costs for public education employees who would be required to make increased payroll deductions towards their retirement plan.
Call your Legislator today and tell them not to balance the budget on the backs of Florida’s employees and retirees. Tell your Legislator to vote no on HB 1319 (and HB 1543, and SB 1902)!
Senate Bill 6
SB 6 appears to affect every educator not just educators hired after the effective date of the bill (July 1, 2010).
We have received a number of questions about Senate Bill 6 and whether the provisions in the bill would affect existing employees. We hope the following points clarify our belief that existing teachers would be dramatically affected by passage of SB 6.
In very flawed ways, the bill attempts to “differentiate” the effectiveness of teachers using criteria to be developed by the Florida Department of Education. The criteria would be used on decisions for evaluation, compensation, promotion, termination, assignment contracts (?) and due process. Accordingly, all teachers are potentially affected.
Specifically:
· Districts may not use time served (seniority) or advanced degrees- held in setting pay schedules for teachers. This appears to affect all teachers.
· The bill requires differentiated pay based on assignment to a high priority location, teaching in a critical shortage area (high need or STEM), or the assignment of additional teaching responsibilities for all teachers. This appears to affect all teachers.
· For the appraisal process, four effectiveness levels are prescribed (highly effective, effective, needs improvement, unsatisfactory) and beginning 2014-15, no personnel may be rated as effective or highly effective if their students fail to demonstrate learning gains. This appears to affect all teachers.
· Beginning with the 2014-15 year, all teachers would have to meet the new requirements for renewal of a professional certificate which is defined as evidence of effectiveness. Specifically, current teachers who now hold PSCs would maintain those contracts UNLESS they fail to meet the recertification requirements. Essentially, the contract is only as good as the effectiveness rating. This is the provision that definitively catches existing contract holders.
· Absent any language in the bill to the contrary, there is a significant question about whether existing PSC holders will operate under a different salary schedule. The bill analysis states, “It is not anticipated that the bill revises the total funds for teacher and administrator compensation but rather, it provides a means by which compensation can be based on performance.” This seems to say there will be no additional money to structure the new schedule so we conclude the intent is that current salaries would finance the reform.
· Bill language requires reductions in force decisions to be made primarily on performance and not seniority. Absent a successful legal challenge, these decisions would no longer be made pursuant to bargained agreements. This seems to implicate all teachers.
And what about Education Support Personnel? Like many of the ideas that come out of Tallahassee, SB 6 is an unfunded mandate. Districts will have to ‘cobble-together’ the funding to put all the provisions into place – or they will be penalized and lose more state funding. In a time of low tax collections and budget cuts we know that ESP jobs will be on the chopping block or privatized. The days of belt tightening are long gone – now the Senate wants to take the belt away. Districts will be forced to do all they can to make sure funding in the classroom is the least impacted by cuts…or they will lose 5 percent of their state funding and be forced to raise local property taxes.
Higher Ed Impact of SB 6
1) The mandated OPPAGA report ignores the fact that Florida teachers have bachelor's degrees, and college-based costs include the cost of an undergraduate program. The bill would require an apples-and-oranges comparison.
2) "Continuous" contact of pre-ed teachers is far beyond the recommendation of national teacher education organizations (e.g., AACTE) for 450 hours of supervised field experience. FEA supports the AACTE recommendation and leaving the structure of those hours to individual programs.
3) Florida does not have appropriate assessments to cover fields for the majority of teachers, other educators, and the programs they came from. Substituting school-level data on a limited number of subjects will not work: Will FDOE hold physical education preparation programs responsible for reading and math scores of the schools where their graduates teach?
4) Florida does not have the budget to develop measures for all areas in the timeframe required by the bill.
5) Louisiana took almost a decade to develop its system of evaluating teacher education programs. Why is SB 6 attempting to do it in less than half that time?
To find your legislator, go to:
www.myfloridahouse.gov or www.myfloridasenate.gov
Click on “Find Your Representative” or “Find Your Senator”
Dear Colleague:
Legislative leaders are moving rapidly to pass a bill, HB 1319 (Grady), that could cut your Florida Retirement System pension in half. By changing rules about how pensions are calculated, they can cut your average yearly pension from $30,000 to $15,000, for example. Tell your legislators to vote against HB 1319. (See below for details.)
Legislators are also preparing to destroy tenure (continuing contracts) for K-12 teachers when they vote on Senate bill 6. This bill abolishes continuing contracts for teachers (earned after a probationary period), places them on annual contracts, and makes both reappointment and pay raises contingent on test scores of students. School boards will actually be punished in funding if they pay teachers more for earning advanced degrees rather than rewarding teachers for test scores of students. Tell your legislators to vote against SB 6.
Over time, the economic effect of SB 6 will be to eliminate graduate programs in education when funding is taken away for advanced degrees, and make it impossible to adequately fund undergraduate education degrees by imposing unfunded mandates (expensive reporting mechanisms) to check on test scores of graduates. In other words, it is an attack on the funding and potential enrollment in public universities and colleges at the same time that it is an attack on teacher tenure and professional achievement. (See below for details.)
It severely jeopardizes recruitment of both faculty and teachers when legislators strip away professional compensation and restrict the academic freedom of educators by abolishing tenure. Moreover, if legislators abolish tenure for K-12 now and get away with it without resistance, we can expect higher education will be next -- losing tenure and finding ourselves subjected to the latest testing scheme to decide if we have the professional standing to continue.
Contact legislators now to stop attacks on the conditions of employment of educators. The loss of professional standards now will make it impossible for us to retain and recruit both teachers and faculty in the future.
Sincerely,
Tom Auxter
President, United Faculty of Florida
Contact legislative leaders today
Say NO to SB 6 and FRS changes
Senate Contact
Senate President Jeff Atwater
Capitol Office 850-487-5229
District Office 561-625-5101
House Contact
House Speaker Larry Cretul
Capitol Office 850-488-1450
District Office 352-873-6564
Public Employee Retirement and FRS Issues
Oppose these Retirement Bills: HB 1319 by Rep. Grady, R-76, Naples
HB 1543 by Rep. Zapata, R-119,-Miami
SB 1902 by Sen. Bennett, R-21, Bradenton
These bills are being moved onto a fast track for passage in the 2010 Florida Legislative Session. One of these bills is scheduled to be voted on in the House Governmental Affairs Policy Committee next week -- HB 1319, by Rep Grady. We are hearing that an amendment is being drafted that will make the bill effective immediately (instead of the bill’s current effective date of 7/01/2011).
HB 1319 makes the following changes:
• Employees hired on or after 7/01/2011, and employees entering DROP on or after 7/01/2011, will be required to pay 1% of gross salary as contribution to FRS
• The definition of average final salary calculation is changed from the highest five years to the average of total career service and salary
• Overtime and other types of compensation (such as leave payouts) may not be included in pension calculations
• Public employees enrolled in the Regular Class of FRS could retire after 33 years instead of the current 30 years (effective 7/01/2011)
• For public employees enrolled in the Regular Class of FRS, the retirement age would rise to 65 years from the current 62 years
• For public employees enrolled in the Regular Class of FRS, the FRS accrual rate is lowered to 1.44% from the current 1.6% (effective 9/30/2011)
• Vesting (eligibility for retirement) changes as follows (effective 7/01/2011):
o From 6 years and age 62, to 6 years and age 65
o From 30 years at any age, to 33 years at any age
• Employees retiring on or after July 1, 2010 may not exceed 80% of their average final compensation (current law: may not exceed 100%)
The sponsors of these bills claim that revising FRS and public employee retirement benefits would save the state money during this time of declining revenues and the need to fund a $3 billion budget deficit. Sponsors of this legislation believe that changes to the Florida Retirement System (FRS) could reduce costs to Florida’s budget.
HB 1319 would result in out-of-pocket costs for public education employees who would suffer reduction of their actual retirement benefit the retiree receives. Further, HB 1319 would result in out-of-pocket costs for public education employees who would be required to make increased payroll deductions towards their retirement plan.
Call your Legislator today and tell them not to balance the budget on the backs of Florida’s employees and retirees. Tell your Legislator to vote no on HB 1319 (and HB 1543, and SB 1902)!
Senate Bill 6
SB 6 appears to affect every educator not just educators hired after the effective date of the bill (July 1, 2010).
We have received a number of questions about Senate Bill 6 and whether the provisions in the bill would affect existing employees. We hope the following points clarify our belief that existing teachers would be dramatically affected by passage of SB 6.
In very flawed ways, the bill attempts to “differentiate” the effectiveness of teachers using criteria to be developed by the Florida Department of Education. The criteria would be used on decisions for evaluation, compensation, promotion, termination, assignment contracts (?) and due process. Accordingly, all teachers are potentially affected.
Specifically:
· Districts may not use time served (seniority) or advanced degrees- held in setting pay schedules for teachers. This appears to affect all teachers.
· The bill requires differentiated pay based on assignment to a high priority location, teaching in a critical shortage area (high need or STEM), or the assignment of additional teaching responsibilities for all teachers. This appears to affect all teachers.
· For the appraisal process, four effectiveness levels are prescribed (highly effective, effective, needs improvement, unsatisfactory) and beginning 2014-15, no personnel may be rated as effective or highly effective if their students fail to demonstrate learning gains. This appears to affect all teachers.
· Beginning with the 2014-15 year, all teachers would have to meet the new requirements for renewal of a professional certificate which is defined as evidence of effectiveness. Specifically, current teachers who now hold PSCs would maintain those contracts UNLESS they fail to meet the recertification requirements. Essentially, the contract is only as good as the effectiveness rating. This is the provision that definitively catches existing contract holders.
· Absent any language in the bill to the contrary, there is a significant question about whether existing PSC holders will operate under a different salary schedule. The bill analysis states, “It is not anticipated that the bill revises the total funds for teacher and administrator compensation but rather, it provides a means by which compensation can be based on performance.” This seems to say there will be no additional money to structure the new schedule so we conclude the intent is that current salaries would finance the reform.
· Bill language requires reductions in force decisions to be made primarily on performance and not seniority. Absent a successful legal challenge, these decisions would no longer be made pursuant to bargained agreements. This seems to implicate all teachers.
And what about Education Support Personnel? Like many of the ideas that come out of Tallahassee, SB 6 is an unfunded mandate. Districts will have to ‘cobble-together’ the funding to put all the provisions into place – or they will be penalized and lose more state funding. In a time of low tax collections and budget cuts we know that ESP jobs will be on the chopping block or privatized. The days of belt tightening are long gone – now the Senate wants to take the belt away. Districts will be forced to do all they can to make sure funding in the classroom is the least impacted by cuts…or they will lose 5 percent of their state funding and be forced to raise local property taxes.
Higher Ed Impact of SB 6
1) The mandated OPPAGA report ignores the fact that Florida teachers have bachelor's degrees, and college-based costs include the cost of an undergraduate program. The bill would require an apples-and-oranges comparison.
2) "Continuous" contact of pre-ed teachers is far beyond the recommendation of national teacher education organizations (e.g., AACTE) for 450 hours of supervised field experience. FEA supports the AACTE recommendation and leaving the structure of those hours to individual programs.
3) Florida does not have appropriate assessments to cover fields for the majority of teachers, other educators, and the programs they came from. Substituting school-level data on a limited number of subjects will not work: Will FDOE hold physical education preparation programs responsible for reading and math scores of the schools where their graduates teach?
4) Florida does not have the budget to develop measures for all areas in the timeframe required by the bill.
5) Louisiana took almost a decade to develop its system of evaluating teacher education programs. Why is SB 6 attempting to do it in less than half that time?
To find your legislator, go to:
www.myfloridahouse.gov or www.myfloridasenate.gov
Click on “Find Your Representative” or “Find Your Senator”
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Virtual Education Rally
Next week, many public education stakeholders will be in Tallahassee advocating for education funding. On Thursday, March 25th the Florida PTA will hold a rally at the Capital complex. Since we can’t bring all of our members to Tallahassee next week, we’re using technology to allow them to participate in a rally in cyberspace.
On Friday FEA will launch an electronic campaign to engage both our members and the public in a VIRTUAL RALLY to make sure that Florida Legislators Keep the Promise and Make Our Schools a Priority.
Here is what you can do to support the efforts in Tallahassee and make the Virtual Rally a success.
Encourage members to do the following:
· Wear RED on Thursday, March 25th
· log on to the Make Our Schools a Priority website on Thursday, March 25th at 4:00 p.m.
· sign the online Keep the Promise petition
· call and e-mail legislators to urge them to KEEP THE PROMISE!
This legislative session has the potential to do more damage to our public schools than any session in recent history –we are facing attacks on collective bargaining, due process, a rollback of the class size amendment, a raid on our retirement and, yes, more funding cuts.
On Friday FEA will launch an electronic campaign to engage both our members and the public in a VIRTUAL RALLY to make sure that Florida Legislators Keep the Promise and Make Our Schools a Priority.
Here is what you can do to support the efforts in Tallahassee and make the Virtual Rally a success.
Encourage members to do the following:
· Wear RED on Thursday, March 25th
· log on to the Make Our Schools a Priority website on Thursday, March 25th at 4:00 p.m.
· sign the online Keep the Promise petition
· call and e-mail legislators to urge them to KEEP THE PROMISE!
This legislative session has the potential to do more damage to our public schools than any session in recent history –we are facing attacks on collective bargaining, due process, a rollback of the class size amendment, a raid on our retirement and, yes, more funding cuts.
FGCU Salary Dispute
News release from UFF, 3/17/10
12:52 P.M. — Florida Gulf Coast University's board of trustees and the faculty union will have their disagreements over salaries, bargaining rights and benefits heard by a magistrate.
The union announced earlier today that it was at an impasse with FGCU officials after more than a year of bargaining over the 2009 fall contract.
"The problem is we are a relatively new University whose faculty work on multi-year contracts and without the attraction of tenure," said. Madelyn Isaacs, president of the FGCU chapter of United Faculty of Florida. "Now additionally, faculty lose money every year they remain at FGCU when the administration hires new and less experienced faculty at salaries at or higher than the salaries of faculty who have been here for years and have more experience and accomplishments to their credit. The University isn't rewarding years of teaching, service, and scholarship. Our proposals sought to stem the growing inequity in compensation, which currently sends a message to senior faculty that they need to leave FGCU to be valued. This simply isn't a good way to build and retain a quality faculty."
The impasse will be reviewed by Florida Public Employees Relations Commission. The commission's magistrate will recommend resolutions to the impasse. Those recommendations will go to the board of trustees and faculty for ratification. The magistrate's impasse hearing will be held at FGCU, the union said.
12:52 P.M. — Florida Gulf Coast University's board of trustees and the faculty union will have their disagreements over salaries, bargaining rights and benefits heard by a magistrate.
The union announced earlier today that it was at an impasse with FGCU officials after more than a year of bargaining over the 2009 fall contract.
"The problem is we are a relatively new University whose faculty work on multi-year contracts and without the attraction of tenure," said. Madelyn Isaacs, president of the FGCU chapter of United Faculty of Florida. "Now additionally, faculty lose money every year they remain at FGCU when the administration hires new and less experienced faculty at salaries at or higher than the salaries of faculty who have been here for years and have more experience and accomplishments to their credit. The University isn't rewarding years of teaching, service, and scholarship. Our proposals sought to stem the growing inequity in compensation, which currently sends a message to senior faculty that they need to leave FGCU to be valued. This simply isn't a good way to build and retain a quality faculty."
The impasse will be reviewed by Florida Public Employees Relations Commission. The commission's magistrate will recommend resolutions to the impasse. Those recommendations will go to the board of trustees and faculty for ratification. The magistrate's impasse hearing will be held at FGCU, the union said.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
FSU layoffs of tenured faculty cause a stir
This was originally published at www.tallahassee.com on 2/19/10.
Florida State University lured Mike Wetz away from the University of North Carolina with the offer of an assistant professor position in FSU's highly regarded Department of Oceanography. Wetz's first day at FSU was Dec. 23, 2008. Less than six months later, in June 2009, Wetz received a layoff notice.
Wetz had done nothing wrong, by all accounts. He was one of five faculty members in his 15-person department whose positions were being eliminated as FSU decided to merge oceanography, geological sciences and meteorology in the wake of massive reductions in state revenue.
Two of his colleagues being terminated are tenured, which traditionally means their positions are secure.
Geological sciences fared even worse, losing six of 13 positions including four tenured faculty. No positions were eliminated in meteorology.
"As tough as it's been for me personally, the toughest part is seeing tenured faculty laid off," said Wetz, who days after receiving his notice learned his wife, Jennifer, was pregnant with their second child. "It's been very difficult for me to see this happen to tenured faculty.
"It's totally changed my view of how academia works."
FSU's decision to lay off 21 tenured and 15 additional tenure-track faculty isn't going unnoticed. The esteemed Science magazine last month detailed how the science programs at FSU have been affected by layoffs, and how FSU is letting go of more tenured faculty than the other 10 schools in the State University System combined.
Provost Larry Abele believes FSU was being pro-active when it adopted a three-year budget last June.
"Our plan minimizes the number of people we had to let go. It's painful to let someone go," Abele said. "We're trying to make it as palatable as possible."
Former FSU President T.K. Wetherell pledged to keep all targeted faculty on its payroll for two years, provided FSU receives a second year of stimulus money. However, Wetz and his colleagues in oceanography were told they would not receive a second year of funding. That changed Wednesday when President Eric Barron addressed the Faculty Senate. Barron acknowledged that there had been confusion, and said all faculty would receive a second year of pay.
United Faculty of Florida, the union representing FSU's faculty, is challenging the termination of tenured members and hopes to have an arbitration hearing this spring.
Philip Froelich is the Francis Eppes professor in oceanography and one of the tenured faculty who received a layoff notice. He isn't sure if he'll return for a second year.
"There's something wrong here," the 63-year-old Froelich said. "To fire junior faculty like this is immoral — and that word is now around the country."
Eric Walker, an English professor and president of the Faculty Senate, isn't sure how layoffs in geological sciences and oceanography are playing around the country.
"I do know how this fact plays: We terminated 21 tenured faculty members," Walker said. "This is a fact that will get the attention of faculty members across the country.
"I haven't seen a whole lot of other institutions laying off 21 tenured faculty members. That's where we're making headlines."
FSU invested considerable resources in fall 2008 when it hired Wetz, Brian Arbic and Amy Baco-Taylor in oceanography and Davis Farris in geological sciences. Approximately $1 million in "start-up" fees were earmarked for the four new faculty members, who have all received layoff notices.
"Universities that hire a bunch of young people and then lay them off quickly afterwards, obviously something went wrong there," said Arbic, who has accepted a position at the University of Michigan. "How many other universities around the country are taking the drastic step of laying off faculty? I think you'll find it's not a very long list."
Furloughs have been enacted at some top-shelf universities, including the University of Illinois. FSU administrators have said repeatedly they regard furloughs as a last resort for balancing the budget.
Leroy Odom, chairman of the Department of Geological Sciences, has seen his faculty roster shrink from 18 to six. He believes the hiring of Barron, formerly the director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, was the best thing that could have happened at FSU.
"I'm not expecting any reversal, but I do expect we'll be treated better in the future," Odom said. "Somehow we went from a department that was good enough to deserve new faculty positions to one that didn't deserve to exist.
"I didn't see it coming. I knew there was a budget problem and they were considering faculty cuts and this and that. I didn't know they would all be coming from our departments."
Florida State University lured Mike Wetz away from the University of North Carolina with the offer of an assistant professor position in FSU's highly regarded Department of Oceanography. Wetz's first day at FSU was Dec. 23, 2008. Less than six months later, in June 2009, Wetz received a layoff notice.
Wetz had done nothing wrong, by all accounts. He was one of five faculty members in his 15-person department whose positions were being eliminated as FSU decided to merge oceanography, geological sciences and meteorology in the wake of massive reductions in state revenue.
Two of his colleagues being terminated are tenured, which traditionally means their positions are secure.
Geological sciences fared even worse, losing six of 13 positions including four tenured faculty. No positions were eliminated in meteorology.
"As tough as it's been for me personally, the toughest part is seeing tenured faculty laid off," said Wetz, who days after receiving his notice learned his wife, Jennifer, was pregnant with their second child. "It's been very difficult for me to see this happen to tenured faculty.
"It's totally changed my view of how academia works."
FSU's decision to lay off 21 tenured and 15 additional tenure-track faculty isn't going unnoticed. The esteemed Science magazine last month detailed how the science programs at FSU have been affected by layoffs, and how FSU is letting go of more tenured faculty than the other 10 schools in the State University System combined.
Provost Larry Abele believes FSU was being pro-active when it adopted a three-year budget last June.
"Our plan minimizes the number of people we had to let go. It's painful to let someone go," Abele said. "We're trying to make it as palatable as possible."
Former FSU President T.K. Wetherell pledged to keep all targeted faculty on its payroll for two years, provided FSU receives a second year of stimulus money. However, Wetz and his colleagues in oceanography were told they would not receive a second year of funding. That changed Wednesday when President Eric Barron addressed the Faculty Senate. Barron acknowledged that there had been confusion, and said all faculty would receive a second year of pay.
United Faculty of Florida, the union representing FSU's faculty, is challenging the termination of tenured members and hopes to have an arbitration hearing this spring.
Philip Froelich is the Francis Eppes professor in oceanography and one of the tenured faculty who received a layoff notice. He isn't sure if he'll return for a second year.
"There's something wrong here," the 63-year-old Froelich said. "To fire junior faculty like this is immoral — and that word is now around the country."
Eric Walker, an English professor and president of the Faculty Senate, isn't sure how layoffs in geological sciences and oceanography are playing around the country.
"I do know how this fact plays: We terminated 21 tenured faculty members," Walker said. "This is a fact that will get the attention of faculty members across the country.
"I haven't seen a whole lot of other institutions laying off 21 tenured faculty members. That's where we're making headlines."
FSU invested considerable resources in fall 2008 when it hired Wetz, Brian Arbic and Amy Baco-Taylor in oceanography and Davis Farris in geological sciences. Approximately $1 million in "start-up" fees were earmarked for the four new faculty members, who have all received layoff notices.
"Universities that hire a bunch of young people and then lay them off quickly afterwards, obviously something went wrong there," said Arbic, who has accepted a position at the University of Michigan. "How many other universities around the country are taking the drastic step of laying off faculty? I think you'll find it's not a very long list."
Furloughs have been enacted at some top-shelf universities, including the University of Illinois. FSU administrators have said repeatedly they regard furloughs as a last resort for balancing the budget.
Leroy Odom, chairman of the Department of Geological Sciences, has seen his faculty roster shrink from 18 to six. He believes the hiring of Barron, formerly the director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, was the best thing that could have happened at FSU.
"I'm not expecting any reversal, but I do expect we'll be treated better in the future," Odom said. "Somehow we went from a department that was good enough to deserve new faculty positions to one that didn't deserve to exist.
"I didn't see it coming. I knew there was a budget problem and they were considering faculty cuts and this and that. I didn't know they would all be coming from our departments."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)