D46 Teachers Picket Before Weekend Negotiations

District 46 teachers, along with some parents and their children, hit the picket lines again Friday before Sunday's next negotiating session.

On Friday afternoon came a big push from the District 46 teachers union to stand unified for a contract agreement.

Teachers, along with some parents and students, lined Route 83 between the district offices at Frederick School and Grayslake Middle School.

The Queen song "We Will Rock You" could be heard blaring from a stereo on the picket line as passing vehicles honked loudly and picketeres erupted into cheer.

Students have been out of school for three days. The District 46 Board of Education and teachers' union have scheduled another negotiating session for 5 p.m. Sunday at Park School.

Parents who walked the picket line with teachers told Patch they plan to be present outside Park School on Sunday to show their support for the teachers, who have been without a contract since July 2012.

"We love our teachers," said parent Debbie Peters, who has two students at Park School. "I am behind them 100 percent. They deserve a raise. They are with my children more than I am. I'm very proud of the teachers for standing their ground."

Another parent told Patch she believes the strike will continue into next week but that she supports the teachers.

"I think we have a really good group of teachers and it would be sad to see them go," said the parent, who did not want her name used.

District 46: 'We are Committed to Resolving Strike'

D46: 'Fiscal Reality' Won't Allow for Teacher Raises

POLL: D46 Board and Union to Negotiate Again Sunday. What will be the Outcome?

Gallery: From the District 46 Picket Lines

District 46 Residents Turn Out for Citizens' Strike Forum

Update: No Contract Agreement Reached in D46 Thursday

District 46 Strike is On

UPDATED: No Agreement Reached in D46 to Avoid Strike

Few District 46 Students Attended Strike Camps on Day One

D46 Childcare Plans in Case of Teacher Strike

Terri January 20, 2013 at 08:13 PM
If 40 teachers had 23 kids per class, and were not offset by attrition of highly paid teachers and decreased enrollment, there might be some convoluted math that would increase class size. You know the math is not that simple. Otherwise, the current 330 teachers & 4,000 students would create an average class size of 12.
Lennie Jarratt January 20, 2013 at 08:18 PM
Actually you did since it was in reference to only 2011 and 2012 data. In using 2013 in the context of no 2013 data, you are insinuating the data is inaccurate.
Terri January 20, 2013 at 08:42 PM
Actually, the data is wrong, I think you said "I believe there are errors. I didn't need to insinuate anything as you admitted it. As to the fact that a number of the teachers you listed on your slide don't even work in the district anymore (2012/2013), that was simply a statement of another fact. The only insinuation was that I didn't think it was real vent, but that's my opinion. Further, the teacher on line 3 of that slide didn't work in the district 2010/2011, either. ISBE, through your link, reports $0 for FY11 (2010/2011). That makes your slide even worse.
Charles Johnson January 20, 2013 at 08:53 PM
Please remember that RIF's are done in order of reverse seniority. You cannot use an average salary to determine how many teachers must be RIF'd in order to achieve a savings target. If you sort that ISBE salary list lowest to highest, in general the RIF's will come from those that are at the $35k-$50k ranks. It also means that because you generally RIF the lower salaried teachers, you have to fire many more than the "averages" you folks are quoting. Additionally, if they RIF 45-50 for next year, it makes it almost impossible to NOT close a school. Taking out that many heads makes it impossible to effectively balance the class sizes over the remaining teachers. By closing a school, you increase the number of students at several other schools which allows the Super to more effectively balance class sizes. Also, don't forget to add the incremental unemployment expense that the district will incur in FY14 and beyond from RIFing these teachers (and any other employees). Most likely, most of those RIF'd will not find employment with another district and will stay on unemployment for a long time.
Charles Johnson January 20, 2013 at 08:53 PM
As to PMA's forecast, I'll say that I believe the GSA forecast for FY15 and beyond is flawed. The Administration's presentation on the Levy showed an expected GSA proration of 80% for FY14. PMA indicated they held the proration flat at 89%. To me, it looks like their FY15 GSA number is too high by at least $700k. If FY14 is dropped to 80%, who knows how low FY15 might be? 70%? Additionally, as I've posted elsewhere, the legislature is now looking at potentially lowering the Foundation amount from $6,119/pupil on top of the 80% proration. Just a $100 drop in the Foundation results in a GSA decline of $370k before proration. My guess is that PMA's FY15 GSA forecast of $7.1 million will actually end up at around $5.5M-$6.0M once Springfield is done adjusting GSA calculations over the next 1.5 years.
Terri January 20, 2013 at 08:58 PM
Teachers are not eligible for unemployment benefits. I have always agreed we could eliminate a school and create tremendous savings.
Lennie Jarratt January 20, 2013 at 09:01 PM
Screen shot from the ISBE website showing L Clark, from line 3 of my highest paid slide with a salary of $72,655.59 for 2011. http://forourchildrensfuture.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/D46ClarkScreenShot.png Now, again Terri, you are proven to be flat out making false statements. I guess it really is true that you do NOT want an honest discussion of the facts. I am done with these lies and false statements. To everyone else who wants to have an honest discussion please let me know. I will be glad to come to a meeting you setup so we can discuss the issues in an open and honest manner.
Charles Johnson January 20, 2013 at 09:09 PM
Yes, teachers ARE eligible to receive unemployment benefits. The district will receive a quarterly billing from IDES for all the unemployment claims for those they fired. That will begin for the June 30, 2013 billing once school ends in June and the RIF'd employee's file for unemployment benefits. The June 30 statement will reflect those payments made during the month of June 2013.
Terri January 20, 2013 at 09:17 PM
Look...I'm the first to admit that I looked at the wrong teacher...there are 2 by the same name. You know you can accomplish the same thing without dragging innocent people's names on line. I still cannot verify the jump from $72.6 to $94.3 in one year. Can you enlighten me?
Terri January 20, 2013 at 09:24 PM
Yep...my bad...I wonder if the district has factored that? BTW...thank you for civil discourse. I learn a lot from you.
Lennie Jarratt January 20, 2013 at 09:34 PM
SB 7 is now allowing alternatives to the Last In First Out - http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/97/097-0008.htm
Lennie Jarratt January 20, 2013 at 09:36 PM
Terri stateed, ".there are 2 by the same name" -- No there are NOT. There is only 1 Clark in both 2011 and 2012. Keep trying to spin your false statements. You are digging the hole deeper.
Charles Johnson January 20, 2013 at 10:03 PM
Happy to help. If you were to delete the uncivil posts from this site, you'd only have about 10 posts. :) As to the unemployment expense being "factored" in yet, who knows? If they are reflying on PMA to do the "factoring", probably not. I am not a big fan of theirs. I guess what concerns me beyond the status of negotiations is that there should have been some extensive analysis already performed by the district on restructuring the district. Its obvious that the district cannot offer the same level of class sizes/programs/etc. as it has in the past given the rapidly declining state revenue in all forms. A school closure study is very complicated. It has to look at every school's location, capacity, operating costs, bus routes, boundaries, re-sale potential, and student load distribution impact on the remaining schools. And if they plan on RIF'ing anywhere near 40 or more classroom teachers, they better get to work immediately to decide which school will close. If not, class sizes at some grade levels, at some schools will be untenable. I'm also wondering if they factored in the lost levy revenue for June here due to the Levy freeze decision?
Lennie Jarratt January 20, 2013 at 10:08 PM
I am not a fan of PMA either. They tend to always predict dire budgets and the need for a referendum. I believe the district also decided to no longer use them for 5 year budget planning. The latest budget figures from the district reflect the update revenues and include their contract proposal numbers.
WorriedParent January 20, 2013 at 10:10 PM
Terri you indicated on a prior post that not all 330 are classroom teachers, some of these are aides, ESL, etc....so what would remain as classroom teachers and losing 38 teaching positions and that many kids would be displaced I would think that it could be a fairly reasonable conclusion that classes would go from the average 23/class to at least 35-40/class.
Lennie Jarratt January 20, 2013 at 10:11 PM
I don't see how the district can RIF near 40 teachers as well. It would be devastating to the children's education. They will be deficit spending though if they do not. I still do not understand why the Union is negotiating for higher classes. It is unfathomable.
Charles Johnson January 20, 2013 at 11:30 PM
This component of SB 7 will be useful, eventually. Most administrators are still receiving training on how to evaluate teachers under the SB 7 requirements. I'd be shocked if D46 (or ANY district) gave performance reviews last year under SB 7 guidelines that would be acceptable for generating a RIF list.
Grayslake Parent January 21, 2013 at 01:01 AM
Out of curiosity...How much has the board, and it's lawyer, cost the district in unnecessary expenditures? What did it cost for Sue Facklam's gift card's for votes adventure? How much for Micheal Carbone's refusing to pay his fees at registration? How much for all the legal issues brought forth by Lennie Jarratt and his love of the FOIA requests? How much for the legal representation needed for the extended negotiations with the teachers? If this money wasn't given away to the legal representatives would there be more money with which to negotiate?
Terri January 21, 2013 at 01:17 AM
Depends on who is RIF'd and how the balance are allocated. Like I said, convolute the math and anything is possible.
Terri January 21, 2013 at 01:18 AM
You also need to account for attrition and decreased enrollment.
Lennie Jarratt January 21, 2013 at 02:05 AM
I am not sure they have started those evaluations either. I do believe Cary 26 may have done something similar leading up to their strike last school year. I believe their list was probationary teachers even if not last in.
Dan Golden January 21, 2013 at 02:45 AM
People, you are complaint about what teachers make...Seriously...take a look at administrators salaries that are posted on the BOE web page for 2012. K-4 and K-8 Principals making $118k and $104k respectively. Assistant principals making $90k and $96k. The superintendent makes $213,025. Really..and they don' t even have to deal with your kids all day long.
Dan Golden January 21, 2013 at 02:53 AM
Also, people are making comments that teachers raises are going to raise property taxes. Really.. You should really be all over the town board to try and generate tax revenue from industrial and commercial streams. You have almost zero businesses there. The teachers raises should be the least of your concerns since businesses are closing in your area.
Dan Golden January 21, 2013 at 03:14 AM
The Superintendent's salary of $213k is more than the Governor's and also the Mayor of Chicago. Why is that?
Dan Golden January 21, 2013 at 03:20 AM
It is unfortunate that the BOE and the union can't negotiate a 4-5 year contract so there would be fewer interruptions in the school years. At least a 3 year contract.
Lennie Jarratt January 21, 2013 at 03:22 AM
I agree. I even proposed a 5 yr contract. See http://forourchildrensfuture.com for the details.
WorriedParent January 21, 2013 at 03:24 AM
Dan, not that I do not agree with you regarding administration pay....per the ISBE website for 2012 the superintendents base salary was 171,044...the 213k is inclusive of retirement and other benefits. It is crazy, the administration is making top dollar on the backs of our teachers. But we can't change those at this time....we could get a new superintendent and pay them less but I am not sure someone would take over this mess for less money. All we can do is hope to come to a resolution while being fiscally responsible.
Dan Golden January 21, 2013 at 04:54 AM
Worried parent, that is good to know. I have a few friends within D46 that are teachers and quite a few lists of salaries that have been posted here are incorrect in the amounts. I am not a teacher and I have seen some of their paychecks and I can guarantee you they are not making what is being posed, especially those that have only been with the district for a few years.
Dirk D. January 21, 2013 at 07:06 AM
Actually they are responsible for every kid in their building and staff. The salaries reflect that responsibility. You need to pay quality people to be in those positions because if something goes wrong it's on them. Lower the salary, you end up lowering the standards of the people who take whose positions.
Forethe Community January 23, 2013 at 06:54 PM
350 people showed up Sunday in the freezing cold to support the teachers of their district. That’s: • 10 times the number that showed up for either of the For Our Children’s Future town halls. • 10 times the number, on average, that shows up to BOE meetings. • 5 times the number that have ever shown up for a BOE meeting (in recent history). 30 local business showed their support for the teachers by supplying food, providing parking, providing warming shelters, allowing access to their bathrooms, and donating cash to help teachers that might need it in a prolonged strike. Residual benefits went to local food banks through excess donations. That’s: • 10 times the number of local business’s that spoke at any levy hearing. • Equal to the number of attendants at any For Our Children’s Future town Hall. • Equal to or greater than the average attendance at a BOE meeting. Actions speak louder than words. I applaud the board for listening to the public. I only wish the silent majority had been more vocal at the levy hearings. It’s too late to do what the public really wanted.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something