Students are losing in FUHSD contract talks
Like many residents, I have read the FUHSD Annual Report with great interest. Maybe the stats included in the report are interesting where the teachers' salaries are concerned. Maybe it's true that the teachers are asking for too much. But it is also true that these teachers are very good at what they do and have not had a raise in a long time. They do deserve a raise.
Some people see this asking-for-a-raise-because-they-deserve-it as a money free-for-all. But without this "money free-for-all," we'll soon be out of semi-good/decent teachers. Many teachers are already looking for other jobs, and some already have new employment. Yes, they are retiring from teaching.
Quite frankly, I'm sick and tired of all this back and forth. Who's winning the negotiations? I can tell you who's losing: the students. Just recently, the union decided that all teachers would resign their club adviserships. But even before this tactic, the teachers were already told not to help tutor students or even write recommendations for seniors applying to colleges. As all parents and students know, these college applications, along with the recommendations, are a big step toward the rest of our lives (that's a long time!). Who's losing? I'm talking about the high school graduating class of '97's future--and the rest of them are worried about their money?
I just hope this is all over by the time my college rejection letters come in. Oh, wait a minute. Why should I even care anymore?
College application season is over. There's nothing more anyone can do about it. We've already been screwed!
H. Shu
Lynbrook High School senior
FUHSD should adopt profit-sharing plan
I am the parent of a Monta Vista High School junior and am increasingly concerned about the apparent impasse that has been reached by the dstrict and the teacher's union. I am aware only of the issues that have been discussed in the newspaper and through direct mailings from both the district and selected groups of teachers. Based on my understanding, I would like to make the following suggestions.
The primary sticking points appear to be pay and health insurance. Let's consider the pay issue first. According to what I have read, the teachers want a [10.5] percent pay increase, and although the district has sufficient reserves to accommodate this request this year, they are reluctant because they are uncertain as to whether sufficient funds will be available in future years. They have countered with a [7.05] percent increase. I believe that a [10.5] percent raise is not out of line based on the teacher's record of very small increases in past years. On the other hand, I also understand that the district cannot commit to something that could prove to be fiscally irresponsible in future years.
A simple solution to this dilemma is for the district to commit to a [7.05] percent pay increase and a variable bonus that is based on a portion of the reserve amount each year. For example, this year the bonus could be [7.05] percent. In this way, the teachers get the pay that they deserve, and the district does not over commit itself in future years. Seems simple enough; sort of like profit-sharing.
With regard to the health insurance issue, being self-employed, I pay 100 percent of my family's health insurance premium. I have found that a reasonable plan with a respected carrier costs $5,500 a year. Thus, I do not understand why teachers cannot take part in a similar plan. The amount of money that the district is willing to pay is in excess of this amount. The plan may not provide 100 percent coverage for everything, but take a look around. Very few company plans do anymore. It is not clear to me why this has become such a big issue.
I think it's about time that the teachers and the district get their heads screwed on straight and behave like the professionals that they both claim to be. Holding the students, our children, hostage is cowardly, unprofessional, and immature. If it continues, it will not be quickly forgotten.
R. A. Becker
parent
District should rethink class-size reduction
Like the woman who threw out the baby with the bath water, the Cupertino Union School District board seems determined to throw out successful academic programs (such as staggered kindergarten classes), and actually increase the number of students in a classroom, in an ironic attempt to reduce classroom size.
Staggered kindergarten (a class of 32 students divided for two hours of their 3 1/2 hour day into a morning and afternoon session of 16 students each) will be abandoned in favor of AM/PM kindergarten (64 students divided into morning and afternoon session of 32 students and two teachers). The board also plans to cram 40 students into some classrooms, with an extra teacher added to help keep order. These measures are necessary, according to board members, to open up other classrooms and receive Wilson's class-reduction funding.
The sacrifice of all small kindergarten classes and some small primary classes would be acceptable, however regrettable, if several conditions were valid: 1) The number of bodies in a classroom did not affect the quality of learning; 2) there was space available outside of the crowded classroom that could be used for small-group learning; 3) kindergarten did not serve an important academic function; and 4) there were no other alternatives available in order to implement class-size reduction.
Unfortunately, none of these conditions are valid.1) More bodies in a classroom mean more desks, more chairs, more noise and more distractions, but less space and less learning--which is why California is advocating class-size reduction in the first place. 2) There is no extra space on school campuses for small groups to meet outside of the classroom. The auditoriums, hallways, picnic benches and even lawns are already used for small group activities. 3) Kindergarten today has totally replaced first grade of 30 years ago. The CUSD has mandated that each graduating kindergartner should be able to read sentences. 4) There are other alternatives for finding the facilities needed for class-size reduction, as expressed by well-informed parents at the Jan. 7 board study session.
The school board, though, stubbornly clings to its plans concerning how it will implement class-size reduction. Blindly following the very latest political trend is nothing new for this board, however, as they proved several years ago when they sacrificed an excellent district music program for the dubious benefits of added technology contrivances. It's too bad that class-size reduction in Cupertino will take the same route, throwing out the good, adding the trendy and impairing education with more students in more overcrowded classrooms.
Jean L. Knight
parent
Demographics foster racism
In the FUHSD Annual Report, there is a pie chart called "1996 Demographics" for Monta Vista High School. White students are 44 percent of the student population, and Asian students are 50 percent. Now, that puts Monta Vista white students into minority status. Hmmm. I wonder if the white students are getting minority benefits. Care to bet on the answer to that question?
I also note that one pie-chart title is African American. But the other titles are not White American nor Asian American nor Hispanic American nor etc. The word American is conspicuously left out of all the titles except African. Why?
And where are the numbers for Indian, Russian, Greek, Italian, Irish, Japanese, etc. Americans?
And why are African Americans only 1 percent and Hispanics only 5 percent? We still have affirmative action in this state, which means quotas. So lets get with it, Liberals. Obviously, Monta Vista High demographics are all out of whack! White students must be the majority, with 10 percent African Americans and 10 percent Asian and 10 percent Hispanics, etc. or whatever the latest quota figures are supposed to be.
But wait a minute. Aren't the above machinations discriminatory? Doesn't all this splitting of people into groups cause discrimination? One group is pitted against another as each group vies for privileges and benefits. Demographics put labels on people that makes them feel less than or greater than other people because of skin color, ethnic background, where they live, how they live, etc. Liberal demographics cause people to concentrate on their differences and instead of people pulling together, they pull apart.
Of course, we all know why Liberal politicians love manipulating demographics. The bottom line is votes to keep Liberals in office. Sure. Promise a large ethnic group benefits, and you get most of that group's votes. Then label anyone who complains as a racist. As long as you can fool that ethnic group into thinking that Liberals care about minority groups, then Liberals stay in office and wield great power and influence, which is the food of Liberalism. And where do Liberals start convincing people that they must be members of an ethnic group? If you guessed "in the schools," you get an "A" for today.
R. Bowlby
Cupertino
This article appeared in the Sunnyvale Sun, January 29, 1997.
©1997 Metro Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved.