250 Teacher Jobs Lost (My Prediction)

tumblr_l6a02mkMPu1qz5mwro1_400.jpg

The House is debating (passing) the $10B edujobs bill today, which will send something like $430M to Illinois and "save" something like 5,000 jobs statewide.  But there are some who think that the whole notion of mass layoffs of teachers has been overblown, for political and other reasons, and others who worry that the money will come too late or in the wrong form to help.  When all is said and done, how many fewer classroom teachers will there be in Chicago, do you think, compared to last year?  My number, a guess really, is 250.  That's after edujobs comes in, after the negotiations between the city and the union are completed, after enrollment is factored in, after the reserve pool is drained and the TIF money is (or isn't) returned, the state helps out a little more (or not), adjusted for inflation and windspeed.  What's your number?

Comments

Leave a comment
  • blog troll tactic number one -- slam the blog when you don't like the post.

    actually, readership is way up -- more casual readers who don't comment but still read posts and comments.

    thanks for commenting, though!

  • I think that CPS *wants* to make a big reduction in force.

    Ron Huberman asks the Union for $100 million in concessions for each of the next two years, which he promises will save 1,000 jobs this year only. And yet he has plans to cut 2,000 jobs.

    Thus, if the Board gets everything it has asked for--increased funding from the state; EduJobs money from the federal government; concessions from the unions; the pension relief they've already been guaranteed for the next three years--they will still cut jobs.

    It's what the Mayor wants.

  • I am concerned about aspects of the Edujobs bill. The bill is H.R. 1586 here is part of the language that concerns me:
    "Except as specified in paragraph (2),an allocation of funds to a State shall be usedonly for awards to local educational agencies for the support of elementary and secondary education in accordance with paragraph (5) for the 2010

  • Is my understanding correct, that those of us who have just been laid off do not get to go into the reassigned teacher pool?

  • In reply to kellipfeiffer:

    The part of the collective bargaining agreement that governs placement of teachers into the reassigned teacher pool is Appendix H. In its "Scope of Policy" section, there is listed 4 very specific reasons a teacher may become displaced.

    If you lose your job for a reason other than those specifically named, you would not be within the "scope of the policy."

    The layoff letters cite the reason for termination as budgetary-financial (which is not covered under Appendix H). Under the policy adopted by the Board on June 15th of this year, reduction in force due to budgetary reasons is not eligible for the reassigned teacher pool.

    My principal reports that we are to lose 25 teachers.

  • Then said wrote: "Is it safe to say that Quinn could not use these dollars to pay what he owes from last school year?" I think the bill rules that possibility out. I hope it also rules out the Governor taking money from the GSA line and moving it once the Edu-jobs dollars are added to that pot.

    Rod Estvan

  • I got the call, so I am out of public education. I wonder who benefits from absence.

  • I got the call on Monday, and I said this so people understand that I am not longer part of CPS. The cuts are a reflection of the poor vision of management,some of teachers that are leaving were decent teachers, some very young and this is their first time they are let down by management.It is bad for CPS and it is bad for the students and all because of CPS can not manage a budget.

  • Teachers will be laid off this year despite this new Edubill. Whether it is 250 or 1,000 it does not matter. What matters is that this bill is a band-aid. It may save a few jobs this year, but what about next year?

    Any Union member out there who expects the government to bail them out every year is living in fantasy land.

  • Good for him, he made the right call.

    I see no reason why the federal government should borrow money from the Chinese to bail out states that have mismanaged their own finances.

    This is a bad law, and the Democrats should have to defend it to their constituents as they campaign for election.

  • More than 250 jobs could be lost in high schools alone. With the new cass size of 33 in high school the number of teachers losing their job is the differece beween old entitlment formula 100,000 / 20 = 5000 or the new 100,000 / 23.57 = 4242 or -758 jobs. The number 20 and 23.57 is based on a class load of 140 (old 28 in a class * 5) and the new 33 in a class. The reason class size is multipled by 5 (number of classes each teacher has in schedule) then divided by 7, the number of classes students take with a full schedule of 46 minute periods. This is example is based on what the high school enrollment used to be a few years ago, before the influence of charter schools and declining enrollment was felt.

  • It's now law in Illinois. Google the "Performance Evaluation Reform Act of 2010."

    Since we have a contract in place through June 2012, it doesn't affect Chicago Public Schools until after our current ontract expires. The new contract will, however, have to include a provision to follow the law.

  • In reply to Danaidh:

    But CPS plans on using it during the 2011-2012 school year.

  • In reply to ladyfair:

    You don't know what you're talking about. There isn't even a plan in place.

    Pilot schools have been using something based on the Charlotte Danielson model, but that isn't connected to student performance on tests.

  • In reply to Danaidh:

    Danny, how do you know there isn't a plan in place? Not that 5thGrade knows either, but...

  • In reply to Danaidh:

    I didn't say there was a plan in place. It is being created as we speak.
    The rumor is they plan on bringing it 'on line' for the 2011-2012 school year and they are telling principals that the union has no say in it.

    The law requires districts to work with its local teachers' union to meet the new requirements. And the law also states that it starts with the new contract year. CPS is trying to sneak it in early - according to the rumors.

  • I am not for the feds bailing out anyone wheter it is a state, city, or private company.

    Like I said earlier it is all a temporary band aid. To really solve the problem you have to look at the root cause.

    The biggest problem is that we are overpaying government employees. We are paying them above the market rate that we pay the private sector. We would not be laying off as many people if the unions were to concede a bit a bring down salaries to market level rates. I'm not asking for lay offs. I'm just saying to bring salaries down to the levels the rest of us are earning.

    Most readers on this blog are progressive liberal type. But I feel there are enough out there to understand some logic and reasoning. I write a ChicagoNow blog that writes about the other more fiscally sound and other side that makes sense.

    For my take on this EduJobs bill see this article:

    http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/trackitfan/2010/08/bring-government-salaries-in-line-with-private-sector-salaries.html

    - Neilski

  • Yep, seems to be going down this week.

  • If it follows DC's new plan there is a different evaluation for those who teach all the building's students. We will have to wait and see. Principals are also covered in this law.

Leave a comment