In a message dated 8/17/2004 7:46:25 PM Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Brionna Harder, Cathedral Hill] writes:
<< I'm wondering if you could provide specific information about probationary teachers being saved at the expense of tenured teachers. >> My information comes from the 2004-2005 budget and press releases sent to mpls issues list members that can be seen at my web site. I have requested more detailed information from the superintendent regarding where teacher positions were cut, how many probationary teachers were employed, how many teachers resigned, and so forth, with a break down for each area (e.g., elementary classroom, Special Ed, etc.). I have not yet received a response to that request. << You cite that it "appears that at least some special Ed teachers were laid off and replaced by high-seniority elementary teachers in order to save the jobs of elementary classroom teachers who are still on probationary status, but are a rung or two higher up on the seniority list than the affected Special Ed teachers." It is my understanding that any special education teachers who were laid off lacked appropriate licensure. Plus the number of teachers in the district who are probationary is very, very low, considering most have been laid off every year for the last four years. Could you please clarify? >> The district laid off about 300 probationary teachers last Spring. And about half of the 300+ teachers laid off at the end of June were probationary, the other half were tenured. That comes out to about 450 probationary teachers, and about 150 tenured teachers. I don't know how many teachers resigned by April 1 (and afterwards). With a teacher workforce of over 1800 in 2003-2004 (There were over 1800 full-time positions budgeted), I would expect the employment of at least 50 to 100 teachers would not continue to next year due to resignations / retirements and firings for cause. I didn't hear about any Special Ed teachers being laid off due to not having appropriate licensure. In all there are over 400 full time teacher positions in Special Education. That is where a lot of the 140 realigned, high-seniority elementary school teachers are going. No Special Ed positions were added or cut. A large number of Special Ed teachers were fired and replaced by elementary school teachers who also have special Ed licenses. Unless things have changed, about a dozen Autism teachers were fired and replaced by realigned elementary teachers (the district could lose its Medicaid funding if it hasn't reversed its decision to replace the Autism teachers). There was a very sharp drop in elementary school enrollment, of about 6,000 from October 1998 to October 2003. However, enrollment was stable in the middle school grades and Special Ed, and increased by about 10% in the high schools. My guess is that there are some probationary teachers in elementary classrooms because board members expressed concern about the plight of new (probationary) teachers in the elementary grade classrooms who would have be laid off due to the enrollment declines. The district is cutting 210.8 full time teacher positions, (Source: 2004-2005 budget highlights, page 3 of the printed version distributed at the June 29 board meeting) Compared to the 2003-2004 budget, the 2004-2005 budget cut 214 positions from program 200, K-12 regular instruction, which reflects an enrollment decrease of 4600 students. Given that average class sizes are not to change, one can infer that the bulk of the enrollment decline continues to be concentrated in the elementary grades because the early elementary school student / teacher ratio is 21 to 1, and 4600 divided by 214 = 21.5. We are told that some jobs were saved as a result of the "realignment process." The realignment process almost certainly saved the jobs of some teachers, but within the context of a zero sum game of musical chairs. Only through a massive realignment process could the district save the jobs of a majority of probationary teachers in elementary grade classrooms. << Also, you have cited that the MPS budget approved by the board (in June, I think) showed only a net reduction of 210 full time teaching positions. Could you also provide the documentation for this? I think this would help me (if not, others as well) understand your perspective more thoroughly. >> Call the Service Center at 807 NE Broadway and ask for a copy of the 2004-2005 budget that was available to people who attended the June 29 board meeting. The district should be able to get you a hard copy or make the text accessible through its web site. -Doug Mann, King Field Mann for School Board www.educationright.com REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
