West Seattle teacher gets the letter “the District did not send”

You may have seen this one in the citywide media – a teachers’ union saying that Seattle teachers were receiving a letter that in effect canceled their contracts, because of a change in how many “Learning Improvement Days” they’ll be working (1 instead of 2). Seattle Public Schools subsequently issued a statement last night saying, among other things (read the entire statement here) “The District did not send letters today to certificated staff on this topic.” Perhaps that meant they sent the letters some other day, as some teachers have indeed received the letter in question, like longtime Arbor Heights Elementary third-grade teacher (and Web guru) Mark Ahlness – who uploaded his to Flickr (see it here), as proof … it’s dated yesterday. KOMO TV has a followup online tonight, quoting West Seattle school-board rep Steve Sundquist as saying, “We are not firing all our teachers,” while district communications staff say they are “looking into” the discrepancy between the statement and the letter delivery. There’s a detailed discussion/dissection in this comment section on saveseattleschools.blogspot.com. 10:53 PM UPDATE: Checking the SPS website, we note that the district has posted another update online, explaining the discrepancy:

When the District learned this week that the Legislature would not be called back in session, we informed the Seattle Education Association (SEA) that the reductions in state funding would result in one less day for next year’s contract. The District and SEA have been discussing the impacts of reduced state funding for several weeks. We shared with SEA a letter we had prepared notifying their members that next year’s contracts would be for one less day than this year’s contract, or 181 days instead of 182 days.

Labor leaders informed the District on Friday of their intent to file an unfair labor practice against the District. We decided that we would wait until early next week to notify SEA members, allowing time for a more thoughtful discussion with SEA. In an effort to clear up confusion caused by WEA’s Friday press release that erroneously claimed the District had “fired 3,300 teachers,” we notified all of our staff that evening by email that reduced state funding would result in one less day for certificated staff next year.

While instructions were given that letters to teachers and other certificated staff should not be sent until early next week, we now know that some letters were mailed Friday evening instead of being held until early next week.

The fact remains that the legislature eliminated both authorization and funding for one Learning Improvement Day (LID), which means a reduction in funding of $1 million to Seattle Public Schools. In light of needing to fill an additional $34 million budget gap, we must in turn eliminate that LID day from next year’s contract.

We sincerely regret the confusion created for our staff this weekend.

15 Replies to "West Seattle teacher gets the letter "the District did not send""

  • Mike May 9, 2009 (10:37 pm)

    I’m confused how this has been taken as a method to fire teachers. Everything I’ve read in the news, the letter posted on Flickr, etc.. and heard on TV is very straight forward when it mentioned the 1 less day that will be part of the contract. Nowhere has it ever stated teachers are being fired.

    Honestly, I think the top dogs in the school district should take the brunt of the paycut before diving into teacher salary but 1 day less to meet budget expectation to save potential jobs across the school district is a very very small price to pay. If I knew that was how to save a job at my company, I’d gladly give up 1 day of the more than 250 days a year I do work (typically don’t take sick days and some years I take a vacation).

  • WSB May 9, 2009 (10:49 pm)

    The firing part seems to be a technicality … as you see, the letter language says “… there is probable cause to nonrenew your contract …” But if you read some of the analysis in the saveseattleschools(etc.) link — the best discussion site in the city regarding Seattle Public Schools issues, so far as I’ve seen in the past few years — there is some between-the-lines tension regarding this having come directly from the district to represented workers, rather than through their union, etc. — TR

  • Dan May 10, 2009 (12:40 am)

    I received the same letter today- And every other teacher I know in Seattle schools did as well…. The school district has been scrambling to control the damage of this….. In the past 24 hours, we (Seattle teachers) have received two e mails from the district, trying to back peddle the whole mess….. Clearly, they know they have screwed up. Remember, EVERY teacher in the state has known we were going to give up at least 1 of those days….. We have expected this….. However, Seattle schools was the only district to send out this type of letter. It is clearly a scare tactic meant to position the district (and a VERY misguided superintendent…) as they enter some difficult contract negotiations. The public needs to be aware of these details.

  • Traci May 10, 2009 (1:15 am)

    I am so sick of this sh*t.

  • GenHillOne May 10, 2009 (6:47 am)

    Poor wording. Poor reaction. Seems both sides are equally responsible for making a mountain out of a mole hill. It’s ONE day.

  • Joey May 10, 2009 (8:25 am)

    589,000 people in April would have LOVED to trade one day a year in order to keep their jobs.

    Tough times. Tough measures.

  • westello May 10, 2009 (11:19 am)

    Again, you miss the forest for the trees. No teacher is crying over one day.

    It’s that (1) the Superintendent clearly was telling individual teachers something that should have gone through the union (collective bargaining agreement, remember?) and (2) this could have been an informal informational letter (“Dear Colleague”) referencing the Legislature’s actions but it wasn’t. That’s what makes both teachers and the union uneasy because of the tone of the letter and the direct reference to the RCW.

    I take issue with the union’s response but they should be standing up for their membership.

  • Alvis May 10, 2009 (1:25 pm)

    Leaving aside any legal misunderstanding of the letter, I think the school district took a cheap shot by timing the letter to arrive during this year’s Teacher Appreciation Week.

  • homesweethome May 10, 2009 (1:39 pm)

    time for a no confidence vote in the super, and time to start looking for a new one

  • j May 10, 2009 (9:31 pm)

    I think the letter came out when it did because of the May 15th deadline of RIFs. I know my district has been very hush-hush about what their stance is on the budget cuts. This should be the week where we hear the good, bad, and ugly by the districts that have yet to speak up.

  • Michael May 11, 2009 (1:21 am)

    If the Union is thinking about pressing the “effectively canceling our contracts” angle, they had better be careful what they wish for – with the state budget massively underfunded, any new contract might just be for less, not more.
    .
    I love the idea that rather than compromise, we should keep firing public servants until someone who pleases everyone and can keep all schools fully funded with no budget will magically appear. At some point maybe you’ve got to stop and think about compromise and hard decisions…Nahhh…just keep replacing them.

  • Charlie Mas May 11, 2009 (1:02 pm)

    The quote from Steve Sundquist was “What I know for sure is that the letter has not been sent.”

    We now know “for sure” that the letter WAS sent.

    I guess he shouldn’t be so sure in future. In fact, it is high time that Director Sundquist learned that he should not rely entirely on statements by District staff as these statements often prove false – as they did in this case.

    Moreover, I thought that Director Sundquist drew the line for the Board’s role in District management at the policymaking/governance level and that it is inappropriate for him to make comment on the Superintedent’s day-to-day administration of the District. His only response to the KOMO News team should have been “The Superintendent is responsible for the day-to-day administration and management of the District and it would be inappropriate for me, as a Board Director, to make any comment on her management decisions or practices except to say if they are compliant with Board Policy. Since this letter and action is not a Policy matter, I have no comment.”

    Where are his principles?

  • Charlie Mas May 11, 2009 (1:06 pm)

    As for the Union being careful about what they wish for, so should the District. Every year, Seattle Public Schools is not able to hire all of the teachers they need by fall. They can barely replace 300-400. The HR department is in no condition to process 3,300 hires and their hiring system is stuck together with duct tape and good intentions. They couldn’t even process the re-hiring of their current teachers. The rickety system could never stand the strain and would crash in a day.

  • dlking May 11, 2009 (9:53 pm)

    I am a teacher in Seattle and I expected to have to give up time/money because of the state budget woes. I did not, however, think I would be signing a “new” unilaterally written contract to keep my job. This action should have gone through the union. Why am I getting a letter that says to me I am being nonrenewed over one day of wages. And what will be the next “probable cause for nonrenewal” that this superintendant comes up with?
    It isn’t one day of wages. It is the unilateral nature of the communication, the unwillingness to work with the union to craft a joint letter or email about the need for a cutback that has me uneasy.
    Teachers understand belt tightening. I personally expect I will have to spend less on my classroom next year, too. I can’t keep up my home and pay for all the things I have been at school with a pay cut and the expected rise in health care costs.
    …donations to PTSA, student music programs, kids walk-a-thons, buy a homeless kid a yearbook, donate for kids that can’t afford fieldtrips, buy tissue, books, pens, cleaning materials, and miscellaneous Science and Math items to use in my classes … belt tightening there, too.

  • Michael May 12, 2009 (12:46 am)

    So they didn’t just send you a letter, they sent you a new contract too? That would be a scoop for WSB – please forward it to them so we can all see it!

Sorry, comment time is over.