Will teachers ratify the proposed contract agreement between the state and the Hawaii State Teachers Association ("Pay cut remains in teachers’ pact," Star-Advertiser, Jan. 12)?
Perhaps one might reconsider those issues listed in this newspaper’s front-page chalkboard illustration.
On Jan. 6, when the media announced there was a tentative agreement, I expected it. I knew the feds were coming to town to take stock of their investment in Hawaii’s "Race To The Top" initiative.
Teachers’ current non-contract with the state is one of the so-called sticking points, making Hawaii "at risk" for getting $75 million in federal aid.
Do contract issues between the state and the HSTA have anything to do with closing the student learning gap, creating higher performing schools or keeping pace with contemporary education reformation? Of course, I know the obvious connection; still, the spotlight focuses on teachers for this debacle, and, for all the wrong reasons. It should be the governor, the state legislators, the state Department of Education and Board of Education and the HSTA who should be lit up, front center stage.
How magnanimous: Teacher pay restored to 2009 levels … next year. Make that one year and seven months from now. The key word here is restore. Restore now! Living costs continue to rise, and teachers are not even compensated at 2009 levels.
Performance-based pay should be implemented as bonus pay for excellence above and beyond the normal teaching experience, if there is such a thing. Long ago and far away, there was an incremental wage increase that worked pretty well.
As for teacher evaluations, who will do that? Bureaucrats? More administrators?
Currently, the highest rating teachers can earn after a full year of observation by an administrator is "satisfactory." Also, I take great umbrage with the idea that teachers should be evaluated by student test score results. The bureaucrats, once again, choose the wrong path.
On the issue of health care coverage: 50-50 health insurance contributions. This won’t change in the new contract. Truth be told, I thought the 10 percent health insurance contribution increase was more than fair when I read about it in the newspaper. It looked good on paper, and didn’t sound too bad when I repeated it out loud: $87 increased to $95 twice a month was not only reasonable, it was affordable. Only an $8-$9 increase for each paycheck — 10 percent, right? Wrong! Imagine my surprise when the medical deduction on my paycheck went from $87 to $184 twice a month. A whopping 120 percent increase.
Comes now the 5 percent salary cut. Understand how this has affected teacher retirement benefits. This plan realized how the state could create a monetary windfall for the future by wiping out near-retirement teachers’ benefit expectations for their "Big 3." Teachers’ retirement benefits are based on their three highest yearly incomes.
There have been a continuum of education budget slashes that began before the Cayetano administration. No one has been able to advance up the wage scale for years. Convenient for the state, tough luck for the teachers.
I was embarrassed to find out the union negotiated additional time off for teachers. Who drafts these negotiations? I can already hear the accusations: "What? More time off? Those teachers already have too much time off They should work year-round!"
Sometimes, it seems like the HSTA works so hand in glove with the state, it no longer really represents the teachers. Where are the provisions professing greater teacher advocacy?
Ratify? Do teachers have a choice?
