Because my subgroup of ASD employees (elementary school counselors) was one of the few job titles targeted for elimination, we had Robb Donohue-Boyer (from ASD HR) and Jim Lepley (from AEA) come to our meeting to explain the process of displacement.  I’ll do my best to explain, but the process is very complex and my primary recommendation would be to see if either or both of these very knowledgeable folks could meet or conference call about the specifics of our situation.

So here’s my guess…Lee’s position was not eliminated, but some teacher (teacher X) was displaced because of a specific position cut (for example, many career coaches were cut at the middle school level, but it could be something different).  Based on contractual obligations with the union, ASD would be required to provide displaced teacher X  a position for which they are qualified to teach.  There may have been a whole series of bumps before the person taking Lee’s position reached the end of this domino effect.  I don’t know the actual title for Lee’s job posting or the qualifications it required, but in other instances, for example, a French teacher ends up taking a position held by a Math teacher (or an Art teacher) because they happen to also be highly qualified to teach that discipline.

Seniority then plays a role, but it’s not the case that the lowest 35 or 55 teachers (I’ve heard both numbers) are those left without a job.  It depends on the chain of displacements that starts with the first eliminated position.

This process complicates our ability to advocate specifically for Lee’s position or to know where to direct our concerns.  It does make sense to talk to the School Board about their priorities for the budget, because that helped to create these results.  Beyond the career counselor cuts, we would have to go back and look at the specific positions identified for elimination to hold them accountable for this.  They will want to shift the blame elsewhere, of course, primarily because they had a limited budget amount to work within, but I think we could challenge them on their prioritization process.  I certainly felt eliminating elementary counselor positions, when they want to promote graduate rates is short sighted, since research supports early intervention (that’s another battle, though, I know!).

We may wish that Steller could be treated differently when there are position cuts, since we have such a small staff and specialized mission.  Other schools are similarly impacted.  If elementary teaching positions were cut, Denali could lose a trained Montessori teacher, and replace him/her with an ABC teacher.  The contract doesn’t allow any flexibility in this.  But I think labor law would only allow changes to that process in the contract itself.  Kind of doubtful, I think.

So, it all comes back to money.  If funds were restored over the summer, laid off teachers are called to be rehired.  But unless the person who fills Lee’s position wants to move into a different open job, I don’t see how Lee can be restored to Steller’s Art position.  I could be wrong (hope I’m wrong), and would encourage communication with Robb and or Jim to clarify on this.

We could explore grant funding for an Art Specialist at the school and pay for it outside ASD, but then he wouldn’t get retirement/benefits, etc.  I think I have the summer grants list on my computer somewhere and will see what’s there, but I’m not sure what Lee would think about that.

Bottom line:  Make a way to clarify options with Robb and/or Jim; challenge the School Board on their funding priorities (will need to research specifics on that); explore ideas for using different criteria in the next contract for optional school teaching positions (doubtful); pressure the city and state for more and more consistent education funding.

Now that school is out, I’m glad to help on this.

Janice