Article 7, Section B, Number 2. Conditions of Employment of the Unit B Bargaining Agreement, states, "New appointees must be properly certified for the position at the time of appointment to that position. A Master’s Degree is preferred but not required as a condition of employment."
However, Administration did not apply this provision to persons on assignments. As a result of the grievance, the School Committee agreed that "all future vacancies, whether by assignment or appointment to a temporary or permanent position are to be filled by certified candidates only."
35 comments:
what about people who are currently holding positions without the proper certification? They will be allowed to stay in those positions while other people with proper certification are ignored. What kind of settlement is that?
The grievance we just won goes forward, not backwards. Henceforth the practice will not be continued. This is the last year you will see this happening or we will go further in exercizing our rights. We also just won a grievance which supported our claim that administrators did not have to attend the so called "Assistant Supt. Meetings."
If you know of or suspect that something is not right or that administrators are being taken advantage of or bullied, you need to contact Lou or Rick. Lastly, it was I, a properly certified person in a position already,along with Lou and other union officials, who filed and defended this grievance before the school committee on behalf of teachers and other administrators who are properly certified and who are ignored in favor of what I consider to be "non-certified favorites." I have been dealing with grievances long enough to know what to expect even when we win. To expect the school department to move people now with a quarter of the school year gone is simply not realistic. We expect positions with non certified people in them to be reposted for September and filled with properly certified people. That is what is called a settlement going forward.
Thanks Big W for clearly explaining the process.
Now that PD Grievance has been settled on behalf of teachers we need to file a grievance on behalf of Directors who are being forced to hold Winn's meetings.
POWER TO THE UNION.
A grievance on behalf of the Directors is currently having the "i"'s dotted and the "t"'s crossed. All dues paying members have rights according to the negotiated contract between the NBEA and the NBSC. If you think your rights or any part of our contract are being violated contact the NBEA. We can only act on the knowledge we get from you.
Going forward is great, however people lost admin position this year and were forced to go back to a teaching position with a big pay cut. They should be the first people to fill admin position if properly certifide. That didnt happen and they are left with a reduction in pay. That should be resolved immediately for them.
Academic coaches(unit A) replaced Instructional supv.(unit B) and are being used as admin. They are holding meetings, observing classrooms and writing SIP's. None of which they should be doing according to contract. This is a cheap way for central admin to replace Unit B people.
YEAH!!!
I agree that next year anyone who was allowed to work this year on a waiver or who was un-certified for their position should not be able to continue in that position. And administrators who use the excuse that they couldn't find viable personnel to fill empty positions, should be questioned as well. There are plenty of educators out there ready, willing, and able to work who have the correct qualifications and who would love to work for NB schools.
Anyone not certified for their current position should not be in that position this year---not next year. Not when people lost their jobs this year. This is just giving people who were granted favors more time to get certified. Not fair to those Unit A or B members who were certified and ready this year. Lets face it---we know how this system works! Sorry but the union did not hit the mark on this one. The good ole boys win again.
I agree with both Frank Rizzo and the posting after his. These are the arguments Lou and I used when defending the contracts. I have to give the utmost respect to school committee members for seeing the wrong done to professionals who have worked hard and done the right thing by staying in school and becoming properly certified for administrative positions. The school committee's decision, in my opinion, also acknowledges the games played in the past by "assigning" someone to a position although not properly certified as opposed to "appointing" someone to a position. Although these games have been played for years (Note certain current principals who were employed as administrators in Unit B for years without proper certification). Our Unit B contract is in the second year of requiring that people "appointed" to administrative positions will be properly certified. The provision was being circumvented by "assigning" as opposed to "appointing". In the future that will not happen. If we had elected to take the matter to arbitration the people currently in the positions still would have finished the year in the positions.
This is to the Instructional Supervisors who "lost their positions and had to go back to teaching at a reduction in pay."
That means you are back in the trenches with the rest of us who you did your best to give a hard time to. You will get no sympathy from Unit A members which you are now a part of. You say you now see Unit A Academic Coaches doing administrative tasks which are not in the contract? Then why don't you file a grievance? Or are you afraid of offending someone and planning on your political connections getting your jobs back for you??? As a Unit A member I was glad to see the Unit B leadership stand up for their contract and it's language. Too often it is business as usual because so many of these administrative jobs are filled based on who you know. Now, at least, they will be filled based on if you have the proper certification and who you know. Cudos to the union leadership. You will never be able to please everyone. Keep up the good work.
Unit B members pay dues too. Your comments are very rude. We are all members of the same union and I believe we all work hard as educators. Those Instructional supv did have proper certification and a grievance has been filed. Allowing central admin to play games and get what they want through academic coaches at a reduced pay rate hurts everyone.
Responding to the fellow members comments regarding Instructional Supervisiors-When a Union member begins to attack its own there is a serious problem for all members. It is this, them against us, mentality that will surely fracture the union in the eyes of others. Unit B Supervisors paid dues and deserved the same representation as any unit A member. The attack on Instructional Supervisors is at the very least small minded and petty. These are union members who lost thier jobs.I am assuming you did not know them all, but I believe all Supervisors were classroom teachers. If in fact your hope was to see the position eliminated you won, time to let it go. However, remember these folks, in some instances,could be teaching next to you! I'm sure they will do just fine after all they are professional members of this union.
Where is the job description for these academic coaches???? Shoulden't it be the same as elementry? Observing classrooms, holding meetings are you kidding me? The union meeds to nip this in the bud! No coach has the right to hold meetings or go into any classroom! Lou take care of this!
So, some Instructional Supervisors lost their jobs and now they have to teach. What a cruel and inhuman thought. Now that you need the union we are all one. When you were administrators you cared less about teachers. You are coming across like spoiled brats who feel something is owed to them. Teachers are laid off all the time. When did the NBEA get the power to hire and fire? Why do you think you could return to teaching? It is because of the work and negotiations of the union. Some people laid off have nowhere to go and have to look for a job. I agree with an earlier post. You get no sympathy here.
I will keep monitoring this blog for a response from Lou or other union officials. Has there indeed been a grievance filed because coaches are doing the work of administrators? If so, think of the irony. Each of the Instructional Supervisors were coaches doing the same job before they were elevated to administrators.
I'm curious. How exactly do the laid off Instructional Supervisors who had to go back to teaching feel the union could have prevented the school department from eliminating those positions? As usual, some people only see value in the union when they need it.
I think I recently saw where one of the former Instructional Supervisors at Normandin applied for and was appointed to the position of Academic Coach. Why were others not able to revert back to coaches?
There must be only four people responding to this blog: Big W, Tim R, Frank Rizzo, and Anonymous. Why not have everyone use a tag so responders know who to direct their comments to?
In middle schools with 700 to 1000 students there was a principal, three assistant principals, three instructional supervisors, and academic coaches????? Say it ain't so.
The school department has eliminated positions before. Why do the former administrators feel they are owed something?? Do they feel they have a right to be employed by the NBSD as administrators? I can think of several laid off teachers who might think they should still be employed as teachers. At least the supervisors had a job to go to. Everyone is not so fortunate.
I am a little taken back at the focus and content of some of these responses. Instead of praising our union for fighting for the rights of the members vs Dennis Wynn (meetings) and others (assigning vs appointing) some are still not happy. I think the union leadership has done an excellent job in standing up for our rights. Both Units A and B are to be commended. There will always be those dissatified with the efforts of thos out front. Let them go through the process also. If the central level administration has done something it can't do, then file a grievance. If management has exercized its right to eliminate positions it won't be the first or last time. There are a lot of things worse than being a top step teacher with a masters degree and longevity. Just ask someone who doesn't have a job.
Perhaps folks should re-read posts and comment with care. Once again how dare we, as professionals, put down and insult our fellow union members.
What is going on here? Unit A vs Unit B? I thought this union represented both. I thought we were all on the same team. I thought we were all educators.
Every justified grievance is important. Unit A or B. Lets be professional and work together.
I applaud anything the union does to protect our jobs and our contract. But the only way the union's jobs will be protected is if there are grievances to follow up on. So keep it coming people!
Just remember everyone -- A group divided against itself cannot stand.
Also, in unity there is strength. We must all stand together. That's what the union is all about.
Grievances have been filed! We need to get to work.
Maybe the question should be why are the positions being eliminated in the first place? Has anyone cared to look into the funding source (s) that put this academic coaches or administrators in to these positions in the first place??? This has really been the issue. Many students many of whom can not read at grade level haven't had the necessary accomodations or remediation programs that they should have had. Remember our schools are mostly Title I funded. I know as a parent I've been asking why my child hasn't been in a remedial reading program prior to high school. Shame on the district for letting this continue on and on. An educated parent is this districts worst nightmare.
To the anonymos post after Big W Do you speak for all of unit A? You do not! Please be professional enough to voice your own thoughts, but you do not speak for me and I am also unit A.
Trying to figure out what is going on here read the posts in order. One post derailed the train of thought. It did not appear to this reader that any instructional supervisor wanted the union to save jobs. Are we reading the same posts? Perhaps the issue here is replace a Supervisor with a coach and next could we replace you with a para?
The following statement is incorrrect. "Each of the Instructional Supervisors were coaches doing the same job before they were elevated to administrators".There are contractual differences between the position of coach and Instructional Supervisor.
Also the middle schools have 1200 plus,900 plus and 700 plus kids.Tescher and support staff number around 100. They have one principal, three vice. principals and now one coach.
It is important that we all have our facts stright.
Just a thought with all of the Anonymous taged posts perhaps each post could be numbered? It would make it easier to reply to a specific statement.
Post a Comment