The beginning of school isn’t all that far away – Sept. 2 – but for a second year, the School Department is entering the final weeks before opening with the threat of not having a Warwick …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
We have recently launched a new and improved website. To continue reading, you will need to either log into your subscriber account, or purchase a new subscription.
If you are a current print subscriber, you can set up a free website account by clicking here.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
Please log in to continue |
|
The beginning of school isn’t all that far away – Sept. 2 – but for a second year, the School Department is entering the final weeks before opening with the threat of not having a Warwick Teachers Union contract.
That doesn’t seem to trouble interim superintendent William Holland.
“Anything is possible on this,” he said Friday.
Holland, who was named interim after Richard D’Agostino retired in July, said he is no stranger to the bargaining process.
“I’ve spent my whole career on collective bargaining,” he said.
Holland has attended three of the four talks held so far. If this round of talks follows the pattern of many others, he doesn’t expect the “major questions” to be addressed until later.
Will the parties reach a settlement by the opening of school?
“I’m not a betting man,” says Holland. “You never know, but you can be surprised.”
Last year, the parties were unable to reach a contract and agreed to a one-year contract extension with a 1.5 percent increase in salaries.
Major issues remain from the department’s perspective, including student weighting in determining classroom size and the number of teachers who can be laid off in a given year. The Warwick contract is unique in that individual student educational plans affect classroom size. Students deemed to require special attention in selected areas are counted as 1.5 or even two students. Although programs have been introduced to address these student needs, the provision remains in place. The result is smaller classes and more teachers.
The number of teachers is also an issue, with the current provision limiting the department to 20 layoffs annually.
With plans to close Aldrich and Gorton Junior High Schools and Vets High School at the end of the upcoming year in response to declining enrollment, projected savings of more than $2 million annually will not only come from closing the two junior high schools but also a reduction in classrooms and teachers. Vets will be re-purposed as a middle school, which will require some capital investment. Also, the administration is faced with consolidating elementary schools that will generate added savings but similarly eliminate classrooms and teacher positions.
Holland, who is looking to prepare the foundation for a new superintendent, would like to have as flexible an agreement in place as possible. He views consolidation as offering “opportunities” but adds, “It also presents problems going forward.”
In addition to Holland, legal counsel Andrew Henneous and School Committee members Eugene Nadeau and Karen Bachus are representing the district. WTU President George Landrie, negotiator Robert Casey and past union president James Ginolfi are representing the union. Sessions have been held Wednesday evenings usually for about two hours at a stretch.
Bachus said Monday she remains hopeful an agreement can be reached by the end of August.
“Negotiations are a give and take process and we’re doing due diligence to create a fair contract for the teachers and the district that also provides the best we can for our children and youth in the classroom,” she said.
Henneous was also hopeful of an agreement.
Neither Landrie nor Ginolfi could be reached for comment.
6 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
Justanidiot
I hope they work to rule.
That is only fair to the teachers. They get paid for what they do.
The kids can go fly a kite.
On their own time.
Tuesday, August 11, 2015 Report this
danfire
The mayor has set the bar very high for the school committee, I do not see the teachers taking any less than the police or firemen. What did he give those groups? 10% over 3 years with no increase in health copay. Did the fire or police group give up any thing?
Tuesday, August 11, 2015 Report this
PaulHuff
@danfire...municipal workers, police and fire all did givebacks and no raises in their previous contract. During that same time period the teachers took raises. You need to look at the whole picture.
Wednesday, August 12, 2015 Report this
Justanidiot
Plus, if my house catches fire, I know the firemen will be there and do their utmost to put it out.
Same if I put a call into the police.
When I send my kids to school, odds are they are going to get a tenured hack who is counting off the days to retirement. They don't even have to do anything any more. Listen to them, it is teach to the test. Boo Hoo. They get prepacked lesson plans so their effort is in staying awake in class.
Wednesday, August 12, 2015 Report this
danfire
justanidiot I do not think you have all the facts.I do know that the police and fire took 0% on salary. I am not going to argue that point. The mayor did give them additional money in the back door. this was done so the head line of the beacon would so police take 0% raise and people would say what a fine job the mayor is doing.The mayor never said how he was giving the police $4000 a year in a new tax free health savings account in stead of a raise. Games were also played with clothing allowances and pensions.Now don't get me wrong I think all the city works deserve more (any one who risks their life to save other should be paid well) than what they get. I also think anyone who educates our future needs to be paid too. My issue is the mayor who lies about the facts to sell beacons
Wednesday, August 12, 2015 Report this
JohnStark
justanidiot: I think you're overstating the case, as I know plenty of good teachers in the school dept. That is not to say the dregs don't exist, but they are hardly the norm.
As it relates to the contract, the SC and mayor could go a long way to distinguish themselves by doing two things, to the extent that public sector unions should exist and/or be recognized in the first place:
1. Eliminate the clause pertaining to maximum number of teachers who can be laid off. This is an archaic, idiotic clause that hamstrings the SC (i.e. taxpayer).
2. Introduce a gradual transition from the current defined benefit pension plan to a defined contribution plan w/ match, which would be owned by the employee. Taxpayers have a responsibility to assist employees in preparing for their retirement. Taxpayers have NO such responsibility to remain on the hook throughout the employee's life expectancy.
Wednesday, August 12, 2015 Report this