QUOLKE’S CORNER #42
Necessary Transfers took place today (Wednesday, September 30). Whether Necessary Transfers happen in the summer or fall, I know that this is a difficult time for all of the teachers that have been identified for transfer, their colleagues, and the students that will have to go to new classrooms. However, it is an unavoidable reality of working in Cleveland. Each spring there is debate about the projected staffing numbers that are used to staff schools. The reality is that there is so much movement of our students and students do not fit into neat packages of 20 or 25. In smaller districts it is easier to project the number of students at each school. However, that is not the case with our 120 sites and transient nature of our students.
In all, 53 teachers have been identified for Necessary Transfer this fall; down from the days when close to 200 were transferred. Unfortunately, the number should even be lower than 53. My biggest frustration is with the dozen schools where transferring a teacher has created an overage that is in clear violation of the 20:1 language. As we enter the final year of a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), that when ratified in 2007 both the CMSD and the CTU made “Eliminating Academic Disparity” a cornerstone of the CBA and capping the class size of K-3 classrooms at 20:1 was a central component of that academic initiative and agreement. Now the District has chosen to abandon that commitment and has staffed at 23:1 in grades K-3. Once again, the reasoning they gave is the dire financial situation of the district and that staffing at a pure 20:1 in K-3 would create class sizes of over 40 in grades 4-8.
While all of this adds to our daily frustrations, what downright angers me in all of this, is the district’s unwillingness to show the same passion and commitment to all of our schools and not just the innovative and option schools. When monitoring the staffing allocations, CTU indicated our opposition to the 23:1 staffing in K-3, as well as the disparity between innovative school staffing and neighborhood schools staffing. Innovative schools that had 4th grade with 33 students received 2 teachers, while neighborhood schools with 32-35 students received 1 teacher. The success that is being achieved in the innovative schools should be the District’s goal for all of our schools and if lower class sizes is a strategy that is working in the innovative schools, then it is a strategy that should be used in all of our schools. The District reviewed the numbers and indicated that it was an oversight and thus instead of staffing all schools at innovative levels, they staffed the innovatives at the same level as all other schools. I find it hard to believe that the disparity in staffing was an “oversight.” Members of my staff have tried to convince me that it was an oversight and that I should have a little faith. When reviewing the staffing numbers from the spring I found some schools were staffed 33:2 and others were staffed 35:1, you guess which schools were staffed at which staffing levels. Additionally, the SPO President from Douglas MacArthur spoke at the Board Meeting last night and expressed her deep disappointment with the District for the way they are staffing her school. She stated that the District had promised smaller class sizes than the neighborhood schools. Was that promise made, I don’t know but the “coincidences” surrounding the “oversight” are piling up and that makes it hard to have a little faith.
All of this begs the question, does the District have the same sense of urgency for neighborhood schools that they do for innovative schools?
Through all of this, I am convinced now more than ever that it is each and every one of our members that will pull us through these times. I am committed to working collaboratively with this district to make sure the focus stays on all of our schools and students.
In Union,
David