Administrative responses to HFT Consultation items. September 1,2011

The administrative responses are in bold and taken from the HISD generated minutes of the meeting.

HOUSTON FEDERATION OF TEACHERS

Please include the following to September 1, 2011 Instructional Consultation agenda:

1.  Violations of paperwork reduction and 187 day duty schedule

Last month we brought into consultation a list rules that if followed would ease the burden on everyone during the school year. Unfortunately we have been receiving widespread and numerous reports of violations of some these most basic and simple rules. The most common violation we are seeing is of TEC 11.164 Restricting Written Information.  HFT has received copies of "templates" for lesson plans from many campuses that violate the paper work restriction act.  At least one principal has tried to say it’s not "paper work" since teachers enter it into the common drive!  This needs to stop and principals and SIO’s need to be schooled on this law. So far the list of schools where this has been reported are:

Sharpstown High School

Westbury High School

Gregory Lincoln

Milby HS
Ortiz MS
Jackson MS
Eastwood HS
Robinson ES
Bonner ES
The Rusk School
Cage ES
Patterson ES

Sharpstown International School

Barbara Jordan

Stevenson MS

Lewis ES

Mitchell ES

We are also compiling a list of several schools that are mandating Saturday training in violation of the 187 day duty schedule.

Why can’t this be fixed? Is the message that SIO’s and principals must follow the law not being delivered? What evidence can the district provide us that these district and school leaders have been informed by central administration that this type of behavior will not be tolerated? Can we be provided with evidence that any district or school leader has been disciplined for these types of violations? This behavior never seems to change. We can only conclude that central administration does not consider these violations to be serious and quite possibly condones or even sanctions this behavior. Must we grieve the highest levels of HISD administration for allowing these violations to continue?

Dr. Spence continued to address the issue of Saturday training for teachers.  He would like to see written directive from principals to teachers mandating Saturday required training and to be given specifics so that he could address concerns.  Concern was that many of these directives are delivered verbally.  Dr. Spence emphasized that he did not expect principals to give directives to teachers requiring Saturday work. He also continued to stress that specifics on this kind of concern went a long way on effectively ending this problem.  It was added that much of this is in how a directive is delivered as to how a teacher might respond to the request.  It was agreed that HFT would provide specifics to Dr. Spence on this concern.

  

2. EVAAS/Aspire

This is a message from one of our members:

“Last week, HISD employees were able to view their EVAAS number and see which students were used to calculate that number.  When I looked at my number, I was floored as I have never had such a low number!  I then looked at my student data and found that many students who had less than one year of trackable data were being used to calculate my EVAAS number.  From my understanding, only students with three years of trackable data were to be used when calculating the EVAAS data.  I have emailed asking for clarification but have not received any response. “

Don Hilber addressed the concerns about the number of data points that EVAAS needed to project their models.  Students can have less than three scores but in some cases, like transfers from other districts it can be difficult to have ideal points to project forward.  Dr. Hilber also indicated that this was a system we would need to build with future data collection and that it may take some time to complete the full data set needed on each student. 

3. Employee transfers

Why does it take so long for technology to “Add/Change Information on an Existing Network/Portal ID” when someone transfers to another school?  Also, why does the district need a social security number in addition to the employee ID number on the form?  An employee ID number should be sufficient as there is too much identity theft to have a paper form lying around in someone’s office and requiring it to be faxed to just a department.  

Mary Pena addressed the use of social security numbers for identification purposes.  The district is in transition away from the use of SS# as identifier. 

4.  New teacher hires

HFT would like to see a complete list of all teacher new hires with a designation for those who are fully certified and those who are ACP's.

There were also questions about the new hires in the district and the number of those that were not certified.  The point was that certified teachers had been let go in this budget transition and that significant numbers of uncertified teachers were rehired to replace existing certified teachers.

Mark Smith indicated that these concerns need to be heard by Ann Best and that she would respond to the questions raised on this years hiring cycle.  HFT indicated that this issue was “highly fixable”.

HFT also requested the survey information that went out this past spring with the new teacher project, know as “School Climate Survey”.

September 1, 2011 Consultation Agenda

HOUSTON FEDERATION OF TEACHERS

Please include the following to September 1, 2011 Instructional Consultation agenda:

1.          Violations of paperwork reduction and 187 day duty schedule

Last month we brought into consultation a list rules that if followed would ease the burden on everyone during the school year. Unfortunately we have been receiving widespread and numerous reports of violations of some these most basic and simple rules. The most common violation we are seeing is of TEC 11.164 Restricting Written Information.  HFT has received copies of "templates" for lesson plans from many campuses that violate the paper work restriction act.  At least one principal has tried to say it’s not "paper work" since teachers enter it into the common drive!  This needs to stop and principals and SIO’s need to be schooled on this law. So far the list of schools where this has been reported are:

Sharpstown High School

Westbury High School

Gregory Lincoln

Milby HS
Ortiz MS
Jackson MS
Eastwood HS
Robinson ES
Bonner ES
The Rusk School
Cage ES
Patterson ES

Sharpstown International School

Barbara Jordan

Stevenson MS

Lewis ES

Mitchell ES

We are also compiling a list of several schools that are mandating Saturday training in violation of the 187 day duty schedule.

Why can’t this be fixed? Is the message that SIO’s and principals must follow the law not being delivered? What evidence can the district provide us that these district and school leaders have been informed by central administration that this type of behavior will not be tolerated? Can we be provided with evidence that any district or school leader has been disciplined for these types of violations? This behavior never seems to change. We can only conclude that central administration does not consider these violations to be serious and quite possibly condones or even sanctions this behavior. Must we grieve the highest levels of HISD administration for allowing these violations to continue?

  

2.  EVAAS/Aspire

This is a message from one of our members:

“Last week, HISD employees were able to view their EVAAS number and see which students were used to calculate that number.  When I looked at my number, I was floored as I have never had such a low number!  I then looked at my student data and found that many students who had less than one year of trackable data were being used to calculate my EVAAS number.  From my understanding, only students with three years of trackable data were to be used when calculating the EVAAS data.  I have emailed asking for clarification but have not received any response. “

  

3.  Employee transfers

Why does it take so long for technology to “Add/Change Information on an Existing Network/Portal ID” when someone transfers to another school?  Also, why does the district need a social security number in addition to the employee ID number on the form?  An employee ID number should be sufficient as there is too much identity theft to have a paper form lying around in someone’s office and requiring it to be faxed to just a department.  

4.  New teacher hires

HFT would like to see a complete list of all teacher new hires with a designation for those who are fully certified and those who are ACP's.

Update on the Budget Surplus

At the August 11, 2011 meeting of the HISD School Board the trustees voted send the $18.5 million budget surplus to the schools by increasing the PUA (Per Unit Allocation) by $85 per student. Principals will have a wide discretion on how this money can be spent but they are allowed to hire personnel with this money. This means that it is now possible to re-open some of the positions that were closed due to budget cuts. The reality is that only schools with more than 600 students will receive enough money to support a full time teacher but this is a great win for employees and students. Principals need to be encouraged to look seriously at restoring positions that were closed. They can be creative by bringing people back part time or by sharing teachers with other schools. We also cannot forget that non-teaching positions were also eliminated. Clerks, secretaries, teacher assistants, custodial, and food service employees can also be re-hired with this money.

The best news is that this is a permanent, not a one-time increase in the PUA.  There was much discussion among the trustees about the wisdom of making this increase permanent in light of further anticipated reductions in state funding for the 2012-2013 school year. A fear was expressed that the PUA will need to be decreased next year to accommodate these cuts regardless of the "permanent" increase. This is a possibility. The Board can increase or decrease the PUA each year when it sets a budget. It has always been able to do this and next year will be no different. We have to be clear that the budget that was passed is only for the 2011-2012 school year. Any employee who can be re-hired will be glad to have even one more year of employment. That is one more year of mortgage payments, rent payments, car payments, tuition payments and in general supporting themselves, their families, and the Houston economy. Most of all it is one more year of helping the children and serving the people of Houston. A special thanks must go to Trustee Anna Eastman (District I) for making this bold and ultimately very wise motion. Hopefully when the Board meets next year to  make budgetary decisions the trustees will realize that making cuts to the schools is not the only way to eliminate budget shortfalls. HISD still has the lowest tax rate in Harris County. A modest tax increase can eliminate the anticipated budget shortfall.

Along with Anna Eastman we must thank the other four trustees who voted for her amendment to make the increase permanent: Carol Mims Galloway (District II), Manuel Rodriguez (District III), Juliet Stipeche (District VIII), and Lawrence Marshall (District IX).

Trustee Michael Lunceford (District V) was absent from the meeting.

We must express our extreme disappointment at the three trustees who voted against the motion. Paula Harris (District IV), Greg Myers (District VI) and Harvin Moore (District VII). Shame on you for not placing the needs of the schools ahead of the desire to keep HISD taxes the lowest in the county. Trustee Myers expressed this sentiment very clearly with this statement: "The last thing I want to do is pass on a tax increase. ‎I won't support it."

What to do with the HISD budget surplus?

From the 2011-2012 HISD RESOURCE ALLOCATION HANDBOOK (page 3)

“PER UNIT ALLOCATION

The per unit allocation for 2011-2012 are:

• Elementary school $3,257
• Middle school $3,282
• High school $3,246 (plus $192 High School State Allotment) 

Once the State finalizes the 2011-2012 State budget and sets the actual amount of reduction in State funding for HISD, and once the Board then has an opportunity to consider any revenue options available to us locally to the extent that the District’s actual funding shortfall is less than the cuts we have made, the first priority for use of any available funds will be at the campus level to increase the PUA.”

In short, what this means is that any budget surplus for the next school year will be sent to the schools as PUA (Per Unit Allocation). PUA makes up the bulk of a school budget and is the money used to pay staff. When the PUA is increased a principal has the resources to hire additional staff, when it is reduced, which is the situation we face this year, staff is reduced. This is the simple reason why we have layoffs.

The HISD Board as a group expressed great regret at the reduction of PUA and in March voted unanimously to return any budget surplus that may exist after State funding figures were finalized to the schools in the form of increased PUA. This Board vote was made into policy with the adoption of the 2011-2012 RESOURCE ALLOCATION HANDBOOK.  Since the March vote the Board made cuts which as it turned out exceeded State funding reductions by $18,490,403.  This is the amount of money which according to policy must be sent to the schools as increased PUA.

GUESS WHAT??

Those of you who follow HISD know what is coming next. On Thursday of next week the Board will be voting on the following recommendation from the Superintendent. This is Agenda Item G-6:

“Administrative Recommendation:

1) Designate that the 2011–2012 General Fund excess budget reduction over state revenue reduction of $18,490,403 be placed in General Fund balance to be used to offset the projected budgetary shortfall of $44 million in the 2012–2013 fiscal year.”

That is right. The recommendation is to put the money in the bank to be used in the 2012-2013 school year. To take the sting out of this recommendation, and possibly to mollify some trustees, the Superintendent is also recommending that $18,490,403 of a $33,855,783 Federal Grant be sent to the schools at the rate of $85 per weighted unit. Item G-6 continues as follows:

“Administrative Recommendation:

3) Designate that $18,490,403 of the $33,855,783 be allocated to campuses for use in three identified initiatives: technology, intervention strategies, and instructional materials. No full-time positions will be authorized since the funding is a one-time allocation. The campuses will provide a plan as to how the funds will be used. Any campus that does not need the funds in the identified areas can submit an alternate plan to the Deputy Chief Academic Officer for consideration and approval. The $18,490,403 will be allocated to campuses at $85 per weighted unit. These weighted units are based on the campuses’ preliminary budget projections adjusted for school closures and boundary changes previously approved by the Board of Education. This one-time allocation will be tracked in separate funds in order to provide specific reporting as to the use of the funds in accordance with the plans submitted by campuses.”

While the same amount of money as the surplus will be sent to the schools on a per unit basis, because it is one time funding it is not part of the regular PUA and is specifically prohibited from being used for paying full time personnel. This simply means that none of the jobs eliminated by the budget cuts can be restored from this money.

This is the second opportunity for the Board to send more money to schools and ease the effect of the employee layoffs. They failed in their first opportunity when they refused to pass a budget that included a tax increase.  We need for the Board to follow its intent as voted on in March, and its policy as expressed in the RESOURCE ALLOCATION HANDBOOK, to reject the recommendation as stated in Item G-6 and require the budget surplus to be sent to the schools allowing principals to restore positions that had been cut. Contact the board and give them the above message.

School Board e-mail addresses

District I	Anna Eastman	aeastman@houstonisd.org
District II	Carol Galloway	cgallowa@houstonisd.org
District III	Manuel Rodriguez	mrodrigu@houstonisd.org
District IV	Paula Harris	pharris3@houstonisd.org
District V	Michael L. Lunceford	mluncefo@houstonisd.org
District VI	Greg Meyers	gmeyers@houstonisd.org
District VII	Harvin Moore	hmoore1@houstonisd.org
District VIII	Juliet K. Stipeche	jstipech@houstonisd.org
District IX	Lawrence Marshall	lmarsha1@houstonisd.org

August 4, 2011 Consultation Agenda

HOUSTON FEDERATION OF TEACHERS

Please include the following to August 4, 2011 Instructional Consultation agenda:

1.          Job Codes, Teaching Areas, Teaching Assignments

Teachers need to be informed of their job code and attendant job title to be sure they are coded correctly. This information can easily be included on the pay stub. When a teaching assignment changes the teacher needs to see that the job code changed with the assignment. Job codes need to be more aligned with the specific job title. There are too many job codes that have the same title as other job codes. We have teachers teaching the same classes with different job codes for no apparent reason. Also teachers  need to be informed in writing, the budget area that is being used to pay their salaries.

2.             Grievance Procedure

More and more when we represent our members in Level I hearings with the principal we find we are meeting with the principal and the SIO. We find it a huge conflict of interest to have the person who is to rule on the next level of the grievance present at the lower level. We either need a re-write of the procedure putting the SIO formally at Level I and designating someone else to hear Level II, or we need to keep the SIO out of Level I and allow the principals to decide without their boss looking over their shoulders.

3.             Opening of School

As the school year opens there are several negative issues principals can avoid simply by routinely following the rules:

·         Classes should be balanced early and class sizes should adhere to legal limits where a law applies and reasonable limits where there is no legal mandate.

·         Lesson plans exist to facilitate instruction. They are not a vehicle to document that every imaginable rule or regulation is being followed. The law requires plans to be “brief and general”.

·         All teachers are entitled to 30 minutes of duty-free lunch periods.

·         All teachers are entitled to 450 minutes planning time during a 10-day period. That planning time belongs to the teacher and there can be no assigned duty during that time.

·         The teacher contract specifies a 187-day work year. Those days are approved by the Board of Education when the calendar is adopted. There can be no required duty beyond the contract year. This includes so-called mandatory training in the summer.

·         The length of the teacher workday is 7 hours and 45 minutes. 

·         All employees are entitled to all supplies necessary to do their jobs.

·         There must be an elected Shared Decision Making Committee in place and actually functioning.

4.             Required Summer & Saturday Training

We have been receiving reports this summer of mandatory training being required by the principals of Young Elementary and Sharpstown High School. Both of these schools are Apollo Schools. We have also received the same complaint from Elrod Elementary. The calendar for  mandatory training from Young ES is attached.

Benefits Update

All this is subject to school board approval but there is some good news regarding benefits for the coming year.

• There will be no rate increase in any of the medical plans. We will not be subjected to increased medical insurance costs in a year where there is no pay raise.
• As of July 1, 2011 dependents covered on an HISD plan are eligible to use the new district clinics. This is an underutilized service that can be a real cost saver for basic medical needs.
• While this is not yet finalized it appears that coverage eligibility will be extended to domestic partners to whom Texas will not issue a marriage license.
• Open enrollment will be from November 3, 2011 until November 17, 2011.

There will be significant decreases in nearly all the voluntary benefit plans. Only in the Dental is there a small rate increase in one plan and some increased copays in others. The voluntary benefit changes are as follows:

2012 and 2011 Dental HMO

• Changed to standard fee schedule with slightly higher copays; increased Orthodontia coverage from$1800 to $2100 for Child and from $2000 to $2200 for Adults.
• 0% rate increase

2012 and 2011 Dental PPO

• No plan changes
• 3% overall rate increase

2012 and 2011 Discount Dental 

• No plan changes
• 0% rate increase

 2012 and 2011 Vision High Plan

• Increased contact lens benefit from $105 to $125
• 19% rate decrease

2012 and 2011 Vision Low Plan

• Increased contact lens benefit from $105 to $125
• 19% rate decrease

2012 and 2011 Life and AD&D

• Increased Employee maximum to up to 5x Basic Annual Earnings to $600K
• No change in AD&D rates; Child Life rate decreased from $o.150 to $0.099/$1,000
• 26% rate decrease overall for all plans

2012 and 2011 Disability

• No Evidence of Insurability (EOI) rules
• Subject to 3/12 preexisting condition exclusions
• 27% rate decrease overall for all options

2012 and 2011 Legal Plan (Remember your Union is your best legal plan)

• No plan changes
• 6% rate decrease

June 2, 2011 Consultation Agenda

HOUSTON FEDERATION OF TEACHERS

Please include the following to June 2, 2011 Instructional Consultation agenda:

1. Displaced teachers

What is the cost to HISD for providing hearings for all the teachers who have been displaced due to RIF? Is it less expensive than placing these teachers into vacant positions? The district has the flexibility to decide to non-renew these teachers and pay the cost of the hearings or to place these teachers into vacant positions at no cost. These teachers have not been identified as ineffective, they have been non-renewed for budgetary reasons. Why is HISD choosing to waste taxpayer money on these unnecessary hearings?

2. Elementary “Apollo” schools.

Young Elementary has just been designated an “Apollo” school. Teachers who were selected to remain at this school for the next year have been directed to sign a contract that commits them to working on weekends with no extra pay. These teachers have already signed their regular teacher contracts for the upcoming school year. Why are they being asked to sign a separate contract and what will be the consequences of not signing the “Apollo” contract? Is this happening at all of the new “Apollo” schools?

3. AP and IB scores used in teacher evaluation

Who decided to include AP & IB scores as student performance measures on the teacher evaluation? When the DAC met on the 29th of March there was no mention of these tests on the document we worked from. (The document was dated March 24th). On April 11th DAC members received an e-mail which included a table showing that AP and IB scores would be used. The table appeared at the bottom of page 11 of the document. There was no cover letter saying that major changes in the performance measures had been made. The effective teacher website provides a document dated April 7th which includes a table showing the use of these tests in more detail. These tables were not provided to the DAC at the March 29th meeting and were still not provided at the meeting of May 19th or May 26th. There were no DAC meetings between March 29 and May 19. The DAC was completely cut out of this important decision regarding student performance measures. Who did make this decision?

4. Extended year

There are principals directing teachers to come back to work on Saturday or Monday to check out of the school. This is a result of the district deciding to use June 3rd as the make-up day instead of the original make-up day of May 30th.

5. Local flexibility regarding state mandates

During the recent session of the Texas Legislature HISD had a lobbying position advocating the flexibility to ignore certain state mandates. This flexibility if exercised, could have the effect of raising class sizes, eliminating the minimum salary schedule for teachers, extending the school year for students, and furloughing employees to save money. These would be permanent solutions to a temporary problem. Perhaps HISD should take a lesson from the City of Houston. When faced with similar budgetary problems, the city had the flexibility to sit down with the Firefighters Union and come up with a local solution. The solution protected jobs and salaries while maintaining needed services for the people of Houston. Instead of lobbying for the right to impose top down decisions damaging students and employees, perhaps HISD should have been in Austin advocating for a local option collective bargaining bill.