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