RIF of DCPS teachers ($40million budget short fall

[Anonymous]

So, as of last night, DCPS has decided that they will be letting teachers go. Please hlep me to understnad why this would be done 3 weeks into the school year. So that means that my child might have to adjust herself to a new teacher and have a larger class?!

[Anonymous]

I think that this may be tied to the enrollment in particular schools. Remember how Rhee had submitted an estimate that some members of the council had deemed unrealistic, and how true enrollment is lower than the funded projections?

[Anonymous]

I understand the enrollment issue but according to the newspaper "The announcement comes a week after what was thought to be good news for the school system: that enrollment had reached 44,397, just shy of the projected 44,681."

[Anonymous]

They should try cutting the extra professional development days to try bridging the budget gap.

Or maybe they are going to keep the cheaper new teachers and fire some of the older morse expensive and maybe less performing teachers?

[Anonymous]

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2009/09/17/vince-gray-says-fenty-scapegoating-council-on-dcps-teacher-cuts/
here is the real story on the cuts

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Or maybe they are going to keep the cheaper new teachers and fire some of the older morse expensive and maybe less performing teachers?

Yup, that seems to be what's in the cards. Hire 900 new teachers (when no one is predicting any real increase in enrolloment) and then you can RIF the older teachers once school starts. I think this must be Rhee's Plan C. Plan A was get the union to sign on to eliminating tenure in exchange for higher potential salaries. Plan B was the unnamed threat that if the union wouldn't sign on there would be arbitrary dismissals without any promise of higher salaries. Plan C is screw seniority, we'll flood the system with new teachers we know we don't need, then, after they spend a month in the classroom. we'll declare that we have too many teachers and that we can tell that all the new ones are better than older ones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or maybe they are going to keep the cheaper new teachers and fire some of the older morse expensive and maybe less performing teachers?

Yup, that seems to be what's in the cards. Hire 900 new teachers (when no one is predicting any real increase in enrolloment) and then you can RIF the older teachers once school starts. I think this must be Rhee's Plan C. Plan A was get the union to sign on to eliminating tenure in exchange for higher potential salaries. Plan B was the unnamed threat that if the union wouldn't sign on there would be arbitrary dismissals without any promise of higher salaries. Plan C is screw seniority, we'll flood the system with new teachers we know we don't need, then, after they spend a month in the classroom. we'll declare that we have too many teachers and that we can tell that all the new ones are better than older ones.

Good plan, as some of the DCPS teachers that have been there for years are terrible. The only way to fix the system is to blow it up and start over.

Keep the good, get rid of the bad... seniority is a joke anyhow, as there is a marginal increase of returns - in improved teaching - for every added year of teaching perhaps after 5 or 6 years in the classroom. Renumeration then outstrips value after a period of time.

[Anonymous]

http://www.dealpta.org/about/Letter%20to%20Parents%20Sept%2015%202009%20English.pdf

Here's the Rhee letter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or maybe they are going to keep the cheaper new teachers and fire some of the older morse expensive and maybe less performing teachers?

Yup, that seems to be what's in the cards. Hire 900 new teachers (when no one is predicting any real increase in enrolloment) and then you can RIF the older teachers once school starts. I think this must be Rhee's Plan C. Plan A was get the union to sign on to eliminating tenure in exchange for higher potential salaries. Plan B was the unnamed threat that if the union wouldn't sign on there would be arbitrary dismissals without any promise of higher salaries. Plan C is screw seniority, we'll flood the system with new teachers we know we don't need, then, after they spend a month in the classroom. we'll declare that we have too many teachers and that we can tell that all the new ones are better than older ones.

Good plan, as some of the DCPS teachers that have been there for years are terrible. The only way to fix the system is to blow it up and start over.

Keep the good, get rid of the bad... seniority is a joke anyhow, as there is a marginal increase of returns - in improved teaching - for every added year of teaching perhaps after 5 or 6 years in the classroom. Renumeration then outstrips value after a period of time.

Chairman Mao reincarnated, no doubt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://www.dealpta.org/about/Letter%20to%20Parents%20Sept%2015%202009%20English.pdf

Here's the Rhee letter.

"Reduction in Force(RIF),which will allow principals to consider several factors, including the needs of the school and the performance of staff, to determine which positions will be eliminated and which positions will be retained."

Seems pretty logical to me...

[Anonymous]

Bad idea. If you have bad teachers, get rid of them. But don't come out with this "all old teachers are bad teachers," because you're talking out the wrong orifice.

And don't go hiring a bunch of 21-year-olds and then pronounce that you need to RIF.

Truth is, we need teachers at all experience levels. If you want to bring in new blood, fine. Hire kids right out of college, but don't put them in charge of a classroom. Let them co-teach for a year. If they measure up, offer them a classroom the following year.

There are a couple of schools that opened this year with all green staff. They're a mess. And they don't have any senior staff to help them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or maybe they are going to keep the cheaper new teachers and fire some

Keep the good, get rid of the bad... seniority is a joke anyhow, as there is a marginal increase of returns - in improved teaching - for every added year of teaching perhaps after 5 or 6 years in the classroom. Renumeration then outstrips value after a period of time.

Chairman Mao reincarnated, no doubt.

How else are you going to get rid of the bad teachers that are preventing the system from improving. I am sure that at every school in town there are at least 1-2 teachers that could be cut and students be better rather than worse off.

This news should make professional development day tomorrow interesting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or maybe they are going to keep the cheaper new teachers and fire some

Keep the good, get rid of the bad... seniority is a joke anyhow, as there is a marginal increase of returns - in improved teaching - for every added year of teaching perhaps after 5 or 6 years in the classroom. Renumeration then outstrips value after a period of time.

Chairman Mao reincarnated, no doubt.

How else are you going to get rid of the bad teachers that are preventing the system from improving. I am sure that at every school in town there are at least 1-2 teachers that could be cut and students be better rather than worse off.

This news should make professional development day tomorrow interesting

A good principal knows how to get rid of bad faculty. I've seen it done. It doesn't take a RIF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or maybe they are going to keep the cheaper new teachers and fire some of the older morse expensive and maybe less performing teachers?

Yup, that seems to be what's in the cards. Hire 900 new teachers (when no one is predicting any real increase in enrolloment) and then you can RIF the older teachers once school starts. I think this must be Rhee's Plan C. Plan A was get the union to sign on to eliminating tenure in exchange for higher potential salaries. Plan B was the unnamed threat that if the union wouldn't sign on there would be arbitrary dismissals without any promise of higher salaries. Plan C is screw seniority, we'll flood the system with new teachers we know we don't need, then, after they spend a month in the classroom. we'll declare that we have too many teachers and that we can tell that all the new ones are better than older ones.

Good plan, as some of the DCPS teachers that have been there for years are terrible. The only way to fix the system is to blow it up and start over.

Keep the good, get rid of the bad... seniority is a joke anyhow, as there is a marginal increase of returns - in improved teaching - for every added year of teaching perhaps after 5 or 6 years in the classroom. Renumeration then outstrips value after a period of time.

So you think Wilson High School is better off without Dr. Art?

[Anonymous]

PP 12:50 above is correct. Here is the statement that Chairman Vince Gray issued in response. Apparently the Council doesn't want to carry Rhee's water here.



PRESS RELEASE

Council of the District of Columbia

Office of Chairman Vincent C. Gray

The John A. Wilson Building

1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20004

_______________________________________________________________________­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­____________________________

For Immediate Release: Contact: Doxie A. McCoy

September 17, 2009 202-724-8032
202-664-9862
[e-mail]




Chairman Gray Challenges Mayor and Chancellor’s Assertion the Council Reduced DCPS Budget for Fiscal Year 2010


Washington DC -- Mayor Adrian M. Fenty and Chancellor Michelle Rhee announced yesterday (Wednesday) the annual DCPS Equalization Process has begun, and according to them, as a result, DCPS must conduct a reduction-in-force (RIF) and decrease individual school budgets because the Council of the District of Columbia reduced the DCPS FY 10 budget. Chairman Gray today released the following statement to provide clarifying facts so the public is not misled about the Council’s involvement in this Fenty Administration policy decision.



The Council approved a $770 million budget for DCPS for FY 10 based on the per pupil student funding formula of $8,945 per student and a projected enrollment of 44,681 students in school year (SY) 2009-10.



The proposed budget for public education, including DCPS and charter schools, projected an enrollment increase which equated to $27.5 million. The Council questioned the validity of that increase because DCPS enrollment historically has declined over the past 10 years. Therefore, it set aside the $27.5 million until the actual enrollment could be substantiated.



On June 1, 2009, after the Chairman convened a meeting to discuss public school enrollment projections for SY 09-10, the Chancellor wrote a letter to him that stated, “I understand and recognize that questioning the DCPS enrollment projections is both warranted and appropriate. The current economic crisis only heightens the importance of the enrollment projections. I understand your hesitance to accept the projected increase in enrollment across the District. I cannot guarantee that this will occur. To that end, we concur in the following proposal:

1) For fiscal year 2010, DCPS is funded at the audited enrollment figure approved by the independent auditor and based upon the verified October 6, 2008 count of 44,681 students.”



Based on this agreement, $24 million of the $27.5 million that was set aside was restored to the public education budget. Now the Mayor and Chancellor claim the Council “cut” $3.5 million ($27.5 million - $24 million) from the DCPS budget even though the Chancellor concurred with funding in accord with the most recent audited enrollment.



In response to new revenue reductions provided by the Chief Financial Officer in late June, the Council also decided to not provide an inflation adjustment of 2 percent as originally proposed in the FY 10 budget ($8.1 million total), and reduced the budget for summer school by 50 percent ($9.1 million total). The Council is currently researching ways to restore funding for summer school, which does not begin until late June 2010.



Since the Council funded the public schools at last year’s levels and with inflation holding constant, there was no reduction in the DCPS budget as the Mayor and Chancellor portray it. And, the Chairman is perplexed how a reduction in summer school funding (1.2 percent of the total DCPS budget) requires principals to reduce their budgets and for teachers to be RIF’d. He is alarmed the Administration informed principals to plan for drastic reductions in their budgets – effectively exploiting the city’s fiscal situation to implement its desired reductions in the teacher workforce.



The $20.7 million ($3.5 million + $8.1 million + $9.1 million) the Fenty Administration alleges the Council “cut” is 2.7 percent of the DCPS FY 10 budget—hardly a substantial sum that has to be recouped by firing teachers. Clearly, the Chancellor wanted to fire these “excessed” teachers and is seeking to scapegoat the Council for her policy decision.



The Council approved a balanced budget for FY 10 that preserves the long-term fiscal stability of the city while funding the District of Columbia Public Schools and charter schools at last year’s funding levels. While these teacher dismissals are within the Mayor’s purview, the Council strenuously disagrees with the unilateral decision to reduce the teacher workforce and cut local school budgets, and will not allow the Mayor and Chancellor to place the blame for these decisions at the Council’s doorstep.



Moreover, in his review of the FY 10 budget in the aftermath of the Council’s action on July 31, the Mayor vetoed one item—the budget for the State Board of Education. In his letter of August 26 to the Chairman communicating the line-item veto, the Mayor not only approved the DCPS budget but made no reference to the DCPS budget whatsoever.



“In the midst of our nation’s worse economic recession since the Great Depression, and at a time when states and cities are being forced to drastically slash their education budgets, layoff teachers, and delay the start of school, the Council found a way to fully fund the public education budget at last year’s levels while effectively closing a budget gap of nearly $140 million,” Chairman Gray said. “The Mayor and Chancellor’s attempts to characterize the Council’s action as a reduction are disingenuous and simply not accurate.”


###

Let no crisis go unexploited?