Strongsville teachers, who two weeks ago staged a silent protest about contract talks at a school board meeting, broke their silence Thursday night, chanting loudly and holding signs before and during a board meeting.
The teachers also made a non-verbal statement by wearing large buttons that read, "I don't want to strike but I will."
Hundreds of teachers chanted things like "settle now" and "fair contract" as school board members and administrators walked into the meeting.
Strongsville police were called to keep too many people from entering the meeting room, which is able to hold no more than 100.
A couple hundred other teachers lined the hallway outside, the front of the building and the parking lot shouting "Let us in" as the meeting went on.
They also chanted "Do the right thing, John" and "Shame on you, John" at Superintendent John Krupinski, gathering under the windows to make sure they were heard.
Two teachers spoke during the meeting. One, Michael Scott, a math teacher at Strongsville High School, said school officials had only offered "ridiculous proposals" at the bargaining table and shown "appalling levels of disrespect" to the teachers.
After the meeting, Krupinski repeated what he said Jan. 17 after 300 teachers showed up at a board meeting.
"They have every right to be here, and every right to express their concerns," he said.
After the January meeting, Tracy Linscott, president of the Strongsville Education Association, said teachers attended the meeting "in order to demonstrate our frustration with the lack of progress in negotiations."
The last round of teacher contract negotiations lasted nine months and ended with a two-year deal that included a salary freeze and no step pay increases for the 2011-12 school year.
That deal, finalized in March 2011, saved the district about $2 million, officials said. It also called for teachers to take on extra duties during the school day and to contribute more to their health insurance costs.
The contract was retroactive to Aug. 1, 2010 and expired June 30, 2012.
Well, how about another article: http://www.thepostnewspapers.com/strongsville/local_news/article_6d07bf70-fa01-57cf-8723-2c0841bd3754.html Maybe the fact that the meeting continued on is more of a reflection on the Board than you - maybe they set an example for how people should conduct themselves. Were you hoping for some other reaction? Sorry, the only reaction you will get is more negative each time you clowns put on this circus. Sometimes best to remain silent and forget the signs and buttons - juvenile! And, I had to chuckle when I read your phrase "the motherland" instead of "our motherland". Makes me think of Russia and socialism. Was that intentional, a slip or how you talk? Also - who is this SEA - a person writing this or a group? In FB it says "The funny thing is that I will be proud to hold my head high as to what the SEA proposed for negotiations" - so it looks like it is actually just a person. Too bad this SEA group of people only use their FB for when they are making demands for themselves. It was created in 2011 for the last contract and then used when they campaigned against Issue 2 to get rid of SB5, and now is revived during this round of contract talks. Too bad this is their only concern over the last 2 years, no concern for the schools or students or parents or community. We are to believe that they aren't just thinking of themselves in contract talks?
If you are so proud of your contract proposal and think the Boards is so bad and the community would think the same - Then why don't YOU release the INITIAL contract proposals of each side BEFORE negotiations began? Put your money where your mouth is! Brecksville had this info.
"step increase" is?
Basically an automatic increase in salary as a teacher gains additional years of experience or higher education (bachelors to masters, for example.) http://www.ohea.org/step-increases http://www.ohea.org/longevity-steps
My contention is that nobody cares more about the kids than the parents of the kids. Since it is a parent who cares the most about his or her kids, shouldn't the parent be afforded the option of choosing what they deem to be best school for their kids? And if they are paying $4,000, or $6,000 or $8,000 a year in property taxes, most of which funds education, wouldn't an advocate "for the kids" approve of a parent's ability to put at least some of that education tax money toward a school of his or her choice, which he or she feels would be best for his or her kid? If a parent were able to use some of the property tax money he or she pays, and divert it toward tuition in a non-government school, would you see that as: A. Doing what the parent determines to be best for his or her child, or B. Undermining public education. My answer is A. The Ohio Education Association disagrees. This is from the OEA website: "Charter Schools and Vouchers: Traditional public schools serve 90% of Ohio’s students. Yet, public schools continue to endure funding cuts and the rapid expansion of “choice” programs aimed at undermining public education. Policies that provide taxpayer-funded vouchers to pay for private school tuition and divert public dollars to for-profit charter schools only serve to drain scarce resources from Ohio’s public schools."
I also read those but I'm still "unclear" what they mean as the teachers and the contract discuss. Maybe I'm not reading close enough, need breakfast and lunch, or analyzing too closely. The reason I'm asking is because I came across comments by "pedro34" on cleveland.com. I keep trying to provide the link, but my comment gets rejected. So go to the site, read the article about the teachers raiding the Board meeting and find this guy in the comments area and click on his name. This pedro fella has part of the contract - the contract that I thought was secret from both the teachers and the public. In summary, it says the Board is proposing: -convert 9.3% of STRS to salary and eliminate the pick up on the pick up -effective 2013-14 and after, "no teacher will advance a step or column on the salary schedule. ... (LIFETIME FREEZE)" So, there is NO mention of lifetime PAY freeze as Jane said. And I would not think that means that a new teacher making $40,000 would be frozen at that for life. If so - I would not agree with that. But it looks like they do get at least 11 years of state required bumps, if I read correctly - so "step" is not an understood word by some of us. I DO think they should limit how quickly a teacher advances to the high end of the pay scale, eliminate bumps just for getting additional education (I personally know of no one else who gets this), and put a salary cap in place.
I see you are posting your same comment on Strongsville.com and cleveland.com. Don't forget about the strongsville Post in your canvas campaigning. You DO want to be in every persons face, don't you? How about some teachers comment instead of some front group?
Call the superintendent for an explanation of the steps. An explanation of the law, or even previous contracts, are not a part of current negotiations, so there should not be a problem with somebody in the district explaining it to you. As I understand it, the board can't eliminate "step" raises because it is a part of state law, but I could be wrong, so it's best to get it from an expert.
Yes. I agree. I do not think it is possible to entirely eliminate all salary increases EVEN if the term included everything. Because, as you said, they are governed by the state - that being, they still get at least 11 years of increases at the very minimum. But, without knowing all the ins and outs of state requirements, including cost of living (COLA?) increase if required, and without knowing all the content of the proposals - how can we compare other than to state an opinion? I think the intent of the teacher or union releasing this PART of the proposal had every intention of misleading people and causing people to focus on this sentence - but it needs to be explained in its entirety and full context of the proposal. Especially if there are other things like state minimum increases and cost of living increases that might happen anyway.
I think its better to have the right answer than us guessing. Hopefully he'll tell you what is required and what they do locally.
"On everything I hold dear, I have NEVER knowingly given false information" ....which means your name is Jane Smith and neither you or your husband are teachers
Problem keeping up with this short back and forth on this topic? You don't seem to comprehend the point of the discussion. Guess its over your head. If I was as intent as you on being so close minded, then I would never have posted what I found that is in the Board's proposal - would I? Would I have ever said " (if) a new teacher making $40,000 would be frozen at that for life. If so - I would not agree with that." Quit your misleading statements - again. Speaking of that.... you say above " I have NEVER knowingly given false information" How about telling me where and when I said what you had quoted me saying. This is about the fifth time I have asked you. Were you making it up and giving false information? I said I would apologize if that was needed. I asked very nicely. So, why can't you once again backup what you say? Are you just on here to spread propaganda? I probably will never get an answer and I guess we won't hear from you again. You keep saying you are done. But you keep popping back up when you want to spread inaccurate info.
Do you have a problem keeping up with this short back and forth on this topic? You don't seem to comprehend the point of the discussion. Guess its over your head. If I was as intent as you on being so close minded, then I would never have posted what I found that is in the Board's proposal - would I? Would I have ever said " (if) a new teacher making $40,000 would be frozen at that for life. If so - I would not agree with that." Quit your misleading statements - again. Speaking of that.... you say above " I have NEVER knowingly given false information" How about telling me where and when I said what you had quoted me saying. This is about the fifth time I have asked you. Were you making it up and giving false information? I said I would apologize if that was needed. I asked very nicely. So, why can't you once again backup what you say? Are you just on here to spread propaganda? I probably will never get an answer and I guess we won't hear from you again. You keep saying you are done. But you keep popping back up when you want to spread inaccurate info.
I recall the union steward stopping by to tell me to slow down because I was "killing the job". I don't recall any of them stopping by to thank me for doing a good days work and keeping the company strong so that they could continue to be employed at a good wage and grow the union by having more members and better representation for the right things. Entitlement breeds contempt.
That "the motherland" speech IS on the Post - it was just delayed in publishing, I guess - because there was only 1 comment when I wrote this above comment. What a joke.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/15/education-reform-parent-trigger-wins-in-los-angeles/#ixzz2KzcpFW1c
That article about the LA BOE changing the the public school over to a charter school was interesting. I was at one time against charter schools or alternate means of educating the kids if it meant diverting funds from the public schools. I had always thought that it would be better to improve our schools rather than take money from them. But if the money is mainly going to overpaid teachers receiving over subsidized cadillac benefits, then the purpose of the public schools no longer exists. Education is no longer the purpose. Once the public schools begin to exist for the benefit of the teachers rather than the students first, then I definitely find myself now favoring charter schools - to my surprise. If my tax dollars are not being used as they should be intended, a change is definitely required. So, if a certain dollar amount is attributed to each student, and then that student is no longer at the public school, then the need for those dollars should no longer exist at the public school. Maybe they should consider converting one of our elementary schools to a charter school.
Time and time again we hear someone say that all of the postings (reply trails to a specific posting) from so-and-so have been deleted when she/he pulled their original post. Unfortunately, there was a lot of good discussion associated with that “train of thought” but, because the person pulled it, all of the trails that were attached to that posting are deleted as well. The other problem is that these posting trails are becoming so long, in order to keep up with what is current; one has to review/scan the entire listing to see what is new off of the original posts. My proposal – everybody post every post in the reply box at the end of the article so that none of the postings will be deleted, and, it will be easier to follow. All you have to do is look up where you left off from before. If somebody wants to delete their post, let them. It will not disrupt or delete the train of discussions that will be in chronological order. I can see where someone could set up a posting hoping that everyone replies to it, just so that they can delete their posting and effectively remove the content of the other postings. (Good tactic to remove the anti-union or pro-union posting information).