Douglas County, Colorado, is ground zero in the struggle for school choice and education reform. The fast-growing is largely middle-class and affluent, politically conservative, and home to the state's third-largest school district (63,000 students in 2011-12). Nearly a year ago the seven-member Board of Education voted to enact the nation's first private school choice initiative of its kind. The local teachers union stayed neutral. Later many of the Board members stuck out their necks backing a property tax ballot measure to fund a merit pay system. The measure lost while the union stayed silent.
In the same election the reform slate swept three races (including two incumbents) against union-backed opposition. Then the superintendent and other top-level administrators hired by the reform Board discovered that hundreds of thousands of tax dollars were going each year to pay for union officers' activities. The Board put a stop to it. Not an unreasonable action in a time of economic downturn and budget cuts.
Last month, though, the backlash begun. The normally cooperative Douglas County Federation of Teachers, frequently distinguished from the harder-line NEA local unions, wore blue shirts en masse and raised a ruckus at a January board meeting. The union touted a survey it conducted showing poor and declining employee morale, but thus far has refused to release survey details that would help explain the cause of the angst. Superintendent Elizabeth Celania-Fagen and her team are going directly to teachers to hear their concerns and address them.
Meanwhile, union allies have been drumming up press to attack the Board for apparently being too frugal with taxpayer dollars. Outside the closed-door union negotiations, union accusations have risen that the Board is failing to negotiate in good faith. Combined with anecdotal evidence of AFT officials arriving unannounced at some district schools, the fingerprints of the national union office appear to be all over this one.
Sympathetic pro-reform citizens have circulated a petition calling for negotiations to be held open. In the name of good government, the Board should have every reason to stand strong in promoting this kind of transparency, allowing teachers and taxpayers alike to see what is really being proposed at the bargaining table.
The test now for the Board is whether they will stand strong against the suddenly strong wind from the local branch of Public Sector, Inc. Union officials may have overplayed their hand. Tax-funded leave days and secret negotiations may not be the only privileges at stake. Whether they forfeit more remains to be seen.
Last month, though, the backlash begun. The normally cooperative Douglas County Federation of Teachers, frequently distinguished from the harder-line NEA local unions, wore blue shirts en masse and raised a ruckus at a January board meeting. The union touted a survey it conducted showing poor and declining employee morale, but thus far has refused to release survey details that would help explain the cause of the angst. Superintendent Elizabeth Celania-Fagen and her team are going directly to teachers to hear their concerns and address them.
Meanwhile, union allies have been drumming up press to attack the Board for apparently being too frugal with taxpayer dollars. Outside the closed-door union negotiations, union accusations have risen that the Board is failing to negotiate in good faith. Combined with anecdotal evidence of AFT officials arriving unannounced at some district schools, the fingerprints of the national union office appear to be all over this one.
Sympathetic pro-reform citizens have circulated a petition calling for negotiations to be held open. In the name of good government, the Board should have every reason to stand strong in promoting this kind of transparency, allowing teachers and taxpayers alike to see what is really being proposed at the bargaining table.
The test now for the Board is whether they will stand strong against the suddenly strong wind from the local branch of Public Sector, Inc. Union officials may have overplayed their hand. Tax-funded leave days and secret negotiations may not be the only privileges at stake. Whether they forfeit more remains to be seen.
This is probably one of the least factually written pieces of garbage I've read about what's going on in the Douglas County School District in the last year. It's obvious from whom Mr. DeGrow got his information... the BoE and Liz Fagen. Did you bother speaking to someone who actually works in the schools or with students every day? How about anyone from the DCF? Your information about the DCF and teachers is rubbish and almost laughable. To say the board and Fagen "discovered that hundreds of thousands of tax dollars were going each year to pay for union officers' activities." is truly ridiculous. "The Board put a stop to it. Not an unreasonable action in a time of economic downturn and budget cuts." is also a ridiculous statement. Everyone on that board except two have been on it for two or more years. The "hundreds of thousands of tax dollars going to pay for union officers' activities" was actually used to pay for Education Research and Development classes offered to thousands of teachers and classified staff over the past ten years. The ER&D program became a model for educational standards and staff development across the nation. Your article is full of misleading and duplicitous information; but unfortunately people like you don't seem to care if you speak the truth or just what you think people want to hear.
Michelle,
I will set aside the comments attacking my character and credibility, and instead focus on the crux of the matter.
Does DCF dispute information provided by the DCSD that from the years 2007 to 2011 the district paid more than $1.3 million for the leave of the union president and various union representatives? $1.3 million is the unreimbursed total amount.
DCSD paid all the substitute salaries for teachers to take leave for ER&D. But many union officers were subsidized by taxpayers, some 70, 80, or even 100 percent of their salaries & benefits.
Does DCF dispute the district's response that produced practically no records of DCF reports accounting for the taxpayer-funded use of that time? I would be happy to publish the reports from DCF if in fact the DCSD has lost them or is hiding them. Would DCF leadership be willing to resume the tax-funded leave practice for greater accountability?
This documented activity is distinct from union short term leave, for nearly all of which the DCF reimbursed the district. The district paid the leave days for "ER&D". The unreimbursed $1.3 million+ is not listed as part of that program.
If the official district-provided information on which this posting is based is inaccurate or dishonest, I welcome you to answer my questions and provide evidence to clear up the confusion.
I applaud DCF for listening to its members and for joining the call put forward by local citizens to open negotiations to public observation, a development that occurred after the initial posting. This kind of open government is praiseworthy. I hope a similar spirit of transparency pervades our discussion here.