Vol. 4, January 2005

The Professional

A Publication of the Minnetonka Teachers Association

Members of Education Minnesota, NEA, AFT, Minnesota Local #7173

http://www.minnetonkateachers.org

Editor, Mary Tingblad, mary.tingblad@minnetonka.k12.mn.us

MM-West, 6421 Hazeltine Blvd., Excelsior, MN 55331

2004-2005 Minnetonka Teachers Association Governance Board

~ President Joseph Ricke ~ Vice President Jan Nelson ~

~ Secretary Mary Tingblad ~ Treasurer Melanie Casiday ~

~ DEC Linda Morantez ~ Deephaven Margaret Ruffino~ Groveland Pam Wertjes ~

~ Excelsior Sara Macke ~ Minnewashta Melanie Casiday ~

~ Clear Springs OPEN ~ Scenic Heights Anita Britton ~

~ MM-East Sandy Gosen & Rhonda Lundgren ~

~ MM-West Mary Tingblad & Jeri Goodspeed-Gross ~

~ MHS Doug Kennedy, Mike Cutshall, Miles Mortensen & Jean Peebles ~

~~ From the President ~~

MTA President, Joseph Ricke, joseph.ricke@minnetonka.k12.mn.us

Greetings! I am sure many of you were in something of a state of shock and dismayed mindset when first presented with Dr. Peterson’s plans for the District’s future. I hope most of you are have been thinking of the best course of action not only to cope with his proposed changes, but also to look for ways we can collectively support each other and still pursue a course of action that will restore programs or minimize the impact of the proposed changes.

Wrong course. The departure to a six-period day is simply not a course of action that reflects our “world class” educational format that we all have worked so hard to accomplish. The six-period day is not wholly supported by the strategic plan and the move to a six-period day will take us back 30 years. While the move would increase the number of teaching minutes per hour (back to where we were at secondary), the balance sheet is dangerously offset by the lack of options to explore. Thus, students will be inadequately prepared to graduate as well-rounded individuals. That will limit a student’s understanding of career options and will limit them instead to focusing solely on college as their next step. How is that realistic, when data shows that upwards of 70% of our graduates do not finish college and drop out within two years? The impact to secondary teachers will be less prep time and potentially teaching more than five classes a day.

Desired change. Alternative Compensation is one item that won’t go away and is at the forefront of educational reform—after vouchers and getting rid of tenure. The primary premise of Alternative Compensation Programs is to entice and retain better and brighter high performance teachers, who can be “appropriately” compensated for their teaching excellence. There are two fallacies and two problems with alternative compensation concepts.

The two fallacies are: 1) that many of the “better” teachers do not already exist. and 2) that student performance will significantly improve with these “super teachers”—or is the concept referencing the performance of the AP students, not the average students? By the way, we already have super, high performing teachers, who are doing so on average wages—perhaps this should be addressed first. What is generally true is that an excellent teacher produces excellent student results—even if the student’s results are not superior.

The two problems with Alternative Compensation: are 1) the lack of a proven, equitable model for alternative pay, and 2) the difficulties and cost of administering such a model. The belief that industry-based performance evaluation systems can work for teachers is also at the heart of the perceived need for reform in pay structures. The problem with this idea is that we are not structured like industry and that we do not produce widgets. Teachers cannot control the quality of the students assigned to their classes and have to work with the raw materials they get. Tests are only one form of student achievement and a teacher cannot make or control a student to perform. Teachers guarantee the input—teaching students as we find them and taking them to the next level.

The MTA will address these issues and will offer meaningful alternatives to Dr. Peterson. We will continue to do our best to advocate for your work conditions, to maintain the quality in our contract and for district adherence to the contract.

~~ A Note From the Negotiators ~~

MTA Negotiator, Anita Britton, anita.britton@minnetonka.k12.mn.us

The Negotiators would like to thank those of you on the Negotiations Council for your guidance in creating the survey which was recently distributed. We truly see our job as representing the needs of our membership and your input is greatly valued. We'd also like to thank the MTA membership for completing the Negotiations Survey. Your comments and preferences will be used during this negotiation. As we move forward in the process, there may be additional surveys asking for your input. We appreciate the time you take to share your priorities. We will be analyzing the data we receive from the first survey and working with that information in the future. 

~~ Contract Administration Update ~~

MTA Negotiator, Mike Cutshall, mike.cutshall@minnetonka.k12.mn.us

During the last contract administration meeting, Mike Cutshall and Joe Ricke met with Tom Berge and Mike Lovett in regards to formulating an early retirement incentive package. Details will be forthcoming as soon as the package is finalized. The hope is to offer those people close to retirement age an incentive to retire early, thereby allowing the district to keep some of the staff which will be negatively affected by cost containment.

Payments for those people who took IB classes in the summer and were never paid for it were determined. Those payments went out in the last paycheck. Continued discussion took place regarding the workload involved in teaching IB classes. We continue to see this equivalent to the workload of teaching a sixth class. Discussions also centered on payment of salary to teachers following the guidelines set forth in the contract.

The number and type of workdays were also discussed. The current procedure of having four secondary conference days directly violates the language of the contract. The administration countered that having teachers work 183 days instead of 184 makes up for the violation (although we all know that we put in more days just getting ready for school, coming in on weekends, etc.) The MTA Governance Board will be discussing this issue at our next meeting.

~~ Teachers’ Rights Review ~~

MTA Teachers’ Rights Co-Chair, Mary Benson, mary.benson@minnetonka.k12.mn.us

Happy January! The Teachers’ Rights Representatives have been diligently trying to answer many questions that pertain to the cost containment document. Please tune in next month—we hope to have an answer sheet available, responding to many of the questions we have entailed. Please take a look at the last article on “Effective Communications in the Era of the Consumer Parent,” given by Paul C. Ratwik, an attorney for the Ratwik, Roszak and Maloney Law Firm.

Reduce the likelihood that inappropriate behavior will occur by establishing and maintaining expectations for appropriate behavior (continued).

· Meeting with Parents

o Identify parent issues and concerns in advance of the meeting whenever possible.

§ The fear of raising issues should not overcome the opportunity to be prepared to respond to those issues.

§ Identifying issues in advance of the meeting makes it possible to respond to specific issues with facts. Doing so conveys both a sense of professional competence and of consideration for the parent’s concerns.

§ If the issue is one with implications for the building administrator, advise him/her in advance in order to obtain guidance and, perhaps, to allow for the administrator’s attendance, but avoid giving the impression of “passing the buck” to the administration.

§ Consider requesting the presence of an administrator at a meeting if you feel that you will not be able to conduct it in an orderly manner.

o Create a written agenda for the meeting with set times for the meeting to begin and end.

§ Give the parent the agenda in advance of the meeting in order to confirm the topics of discussion and to give the parents a chance to raise additional issues.

§ Seeing their issues on a written agenda reassures a parent that they will be addressed and increases the likelihood that the discussion will be civil in tone.

§ Following the agenda increases the chances that the meeting will address all of the issues and end on time.

§ Do not be afraid to recognize that there is disagreement as to a specific point or issue. State the positions of the parties and move on to the next point. Summarize the positions of the parties at the conclusion of the meeting.

§ The use of “educationalese” is to be avoided. Educational terms and acronyms should be explained in terms a layperson can understand.

§ A cordial and professional demeanor need not be unfriendly or hostile.

§ Check for parental understanding of the discussion of each agenda item as it occurs.

· Ask if the parent is comfortable that he/she understands the district’s position.

· Explain that you are not seeking a concession that the district’s position is correct, but merely making sure that the parent understands what the district is saying.

· Restate the parent’s position and confirm that the restatement accurately describes the parent’s position.

· Recognize that parents sometimes feel that if the district does not accept their position it is because