Year Round - Traditional Pay History

On May 11, 2010, seven year round schools found out in a School Board meeting that they would be moving to a traditional calendar for the next year.  The employees at those schools had just three months to figure out how to adjust for the lack of an August paycheck.  The reason for the gap is that the final YR paycheck is July, and the first traditional paycheck is September.  All of the employees at those seven schools were given the skip an August paycheck or taking their salary over 13 months for the 2010-11 school year.  Three months was not enough time for employees to save to cover a no August paycheck, so the majority took the 13-month paychecks.

As a teacher at one of those seven schools and newly elected as JEA President, I started asking around at the district, trying to find someone who wanted to find a solution to the pay problems that stem from changing calendars.  I spoke to the Director of Payroll, the Director of Accounting, the Business Administrator, the new Director of Payroll, and the new Business Administrator.  Two of the seven schools that went traditional in 2010 have since returned to YR.  With seven YR schools moving to a traditional calendar for 2015-16, two of those only being guaranteed traditional for two years, and the possibility of moving another school to traditional in 2016-17 with some possibly moving back to YR in 2017-18, employees at those schools asked the School Board to fix the pay issue that occurs when moving from YR to traditional or traditional to YR. 

JEA negotiates what you are paid, but not how you are paid, so I was pleased to be invited to participate in looking for a way to solve the pay problems that occur when school calendars change.  I met with John Larsen, Business Administrator, June LeMaster, Director of Human Resources, Sarah Palmer, Director of Payroll, and Chris Godfrey, UniServ Director for JESPA multiple times.  We started by putting out any idea without worrying how it would impact the district or employees.  From there, we looked at specific options, if they were viable, and how employees and the district would be impacted.

I presented preliminary ideas to YR JEA ARs at our meeting in February.  The administration did not want to do a survey of all YR employees, because the School Board should see the plan first.  When I spoke with the YR ARs, they understood the need for a transition plan, and really wanted five years to make the transition, so I pushed for that timeline.  I went through the plan in detail with YR JEA ARs or their representatives at our meeting in March.  I then made an effort to personally visit with every YR JEA AR who was not able to attend the March meeting within the two days following that meeting.

I understand the concerns of teachers at the 15 schools not currently moving to a traditional calendar.  I have found that teachers at those 15 schools who have been through a calendar change before are more understanding and receptive to this transition plan.  The School Board is allowing up to six months for people at the 15 schools to share additional ideas on how to solve the pay issues that come with changing calendars.  You will receive a survey toward the end of May seeking those ideas.  I encourage you to complete the survey and share your ideas for solving the pay issue.

As I met with teachers at some of the 15 schools, I put individual information into a spreadsheet I designed to look at the impact of a 13-month payout of your salary for the 2015-16 school year.  The coming year is a good year for many employees, because we are receiving steps, lanes, and a 2% cost of living adjustment (raise) due to the two-year agreement JEA negotiated in 2014.  For teachers receiving a step and 2%, the gross pay difference is less than $100 a month for 2015-16.  While the School Board is still seeking another way to solve the pay issue, they are allowing those who want to transition to a traditional pay schedule in the 2015-16 school year may do so.  All JEA ARs have been sent the spreadsheet.  I am also happy to meet with JEA members individually or at a meeting for the school to help you see if the coming year is a good year for you.

In six months time, if another workable plan to fix the YR to traditional pay issue is not presented, the School Board will likely go back to the plan originally presented.  Once you transition to a traditional pay schedule, you will have the freedom and flexibility to transfer to any school regardless of schedule or have your school change schedules and not have to worry about the pay implications with just a few months' notice.  If teaching on a YR calendar but paid on a traditional pay schedule, your last paycheck when you leave the district will be August instead of July, allowing another month of health insurance coverage. 

Please contact me if you have questions or would like me to come meet with you.

Letter from UEA President

Dear Fellow UEA Members,

I am writing to you today about the appointment Brad Smith, current Ogden School District Superintendent, as the State Superintendent of Instruction. I recognize there is angst by many over Mr. Smith’s appointment.

First, let me thank those of you who actively engaged with your State Board of Education members. The current Utah State Board of Education is very divided. Supt. Smith was selected by an 8-7 margin. Many Board votes are determined by the same margin.

Second, we are very disappointed the State Board of Education appointed a State Superintendent with no significant classroom teaching experience and little public education administration experience. With so little education knowledge, we anticipate the learning curve for Supt. Smith will be very steep. The UEA hopes and expects to work directly with Supt. Smith, as we have with past superintendents, to help him understand and appreciate the views of classroom teachers.

Finally, let me reassure each of you that UEA has staff and leaders sitting in each and every USOE Board meeting working to influence board rule and board members. Because of UEA, the interviews for State Superintendent were held in open meetings, the stakeholders were involved in the semi-finalist interviews and the public weighed in on the issue of the next Superintendent having education experience. Did we win the day? No, but you can darn well bet the public, teachers and other stakeholders are going to keep tabs on Mr. Smith.

It is important to note that Superintendent Smith’s record in working with teachers has evolved significantly over his short tenure in Ogden School District. A local UniServ director who works with Supt. Smith said, “I believe Mr. Smith's view of teacher organizations has changed in the (past few) years…We went from having a district-implemented contract in 2011 to very positive contract negotiations this past year. Teachers received all of their lost pay steps…for some, 3 pay steps equaling more than a $5,000 a year pay increase. Teachers now have a salary schedule where they will always continue to advance and we have solidified more protections for teachers…Plus, we have been very successful in winning grievances that he has ruled on.”

We will continue to work collaboratively with the new State Superintendent but we will also not lose sight of the fact that teachers need the support of the State School Board and the State Office of Education. Rest assured that we “have your back” and we will continue to be vigilant in our representation of you, the member.

Thank you for all you do for our students and our profession.

Best,

Sharon

Sharon Gallagher-Fishbaugh, M.A., NBCT

President, Utah Education Association

2009 Utah Teacher of the Year

State Superintendent Search

Letter sent by UEA President Sharon Gallagher-Fishbaugh to Members of the Utah State Board of Education about the minimum requirements for the State Superintendent.  UEA is concerned about having a political person in the position in stead of an educator.  You can see in this job posting that having a Utah teaching license is not a requirement of the job. 

TO:                Utah State Board of Education Members 

FROM:          Utah Education Association

DATE:          August 25, 2014

SUBJECT:    State Superintendent of Public Instruction – MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS

Dear Board of Education Members:

I don’t envy the task you have ahead in sorting through the applicants and selecting a leader to fill the Superintendent of Public Instruction position. The person filling this important post not only carries out the strategic direction set by the Board, but is also the “face” of Utah public education to school administrators, teachers, classified staff, parents and students.

In order to effectively implement statewide public education policy, the UEA believes it is imperative the person selected for this position have shared experience with teachers and administrators…someone who understands the complex intricacies of public education policy, knows what it is like in a classroom, and can garner the respect of those they will be directing.

To this end, the teachers of Utah call on the State Board of Education to seek a State Superintendent of Public Instruction who possesses the following minimum qualifications:

·          Relevant public school classroom experience including knowledge of public school curriculum, education policy, research and best practices

·          Relevant public school administrative experience, including knowledge of education finance, school budgets, human resources, employee contracts and education law.

·          Advanced degree in education

·          Proven record of collaboration with multiple stakeholders

·          Ability to be the superintendent to superintendents

As representatives of Utah’s educators, the Utah Education Association looks forward to participation, as a stakeholder, in the Superintendent selection process.

Thank you for your service to Utah public education.

Sincerely,

Sharon Gallagher-Fishbaugh, NBCT, MA
UEA President

2009 Utah Teacher of the Year

Draft Interlocal Agreement

Below is the draft Interlocal Agreement from South Jordan attorney Mr. Wall.  My notes indicate some changes proposed by Ms. Andrews, the attorney representing the Jordan District Board.  I have not seen what was being sent back to the cities.  This one was from the school board meeting on Monday night.

Jordan Board Meeting About MOU with Cities

Below are my notes from today's special study session of the Jordan Board of Education.  South Jordan City feasibility study discussion on Wednesday, July 30 from 4:00 - 6:00 with public comment open at 6:00.  This will be at the South Jordan Community Center, approximately 11000 S Redwood Road.  Tuesday August 5 the SJC Council will decide whether or not to put a split on the ballot.

JSD board meeting about SJC split - Corbin is not here.

Attorney Joan said MOU is not legally enforceable. Inter local agreement is legally binding contract. They have limited term. MOU can be terminated at any time.

Mr. Crane says no to inter local agreement. MOU is fine.

Change the word "shall" to "may" become interlocal agreement. Mr. Crane and Mrs. Kennett want interlocal agreement out altogether. Mrs. Pulsipher and Mrs. Whitelock think it is more likely to be agreed to by the cities if a statement with the word "may" in it.  Attorney recommended adding sentence stating that the MOU is not a legally binding contract. Mrs. Pulsipher doesn't want them to think the board is not serious about the MOU.

Mr. Crane doesn't think the MOU doesn't need to be this long and a lot of items in this new document were not in the original. This is just getting deeper.  Making mountain out of a mole hill. Do not want to be overreaching. Requests in latest document are too overreaching. Mrs. Voorhies agrees. Some limit school board. Need flexibility to deal with needs of various cities. Constraints should not interfere with their ability to do their job as a school board.

Mrs. Pulsipher said generally speaking, the items are things the board should do. W haven't been doing them. Give cities a comfort level that the board will do these items. Mrs. Voorhies said there is no level of comfort for her. Nothing that says the city will change their behavior.  She will not sign if it doesn't include a guarantee of not putting a split on the ballot. Paid no attention to what board said.

Mr. Crane is fine with MOU. Fine to increase dialogue. Best interest of students to not split. Entered discussion with a degree of trust that if JSD entered MOU agreement, that would be the end of split talk. We want to avoid a split. The split cloud is still hanging there. (Chuck Newton from SJC council walked in and sat at the same table with School board members, attorney, and district level administrators.)

Mr. Crane said there are too many variables on when schools will be built. Need flexibility there. Mrs. Kennett said in the five year plan, the first year would be pretty set, but then the next years would need to change. Mr. Newton said their intent was that the focus could go to growing areas.

Prior to purchasing land, will work with cities to cite new facilities. Mrs. Voorhies said that they want kids to walk to school if possible, but there are many schools where that is not possible at this time. Mrs. Pulsipher said it states that the board will make reasonable effort to have walking schools. Mr. Newton said they are assuming the board will make reasonable efforts. Sometimes you have to deal with crisis issues and deal with less severe overcrowding. Not trying to lock you in to something that is unreasonable. Asking for good faith effort. Mayors are not aware of all the information the board has. Interested on action and delivery. When interlocal agreement is executed, will need to have more communication. This is not a static process. Mrs. Voorhies asked then why do we need MOU? Mr. Newton said originally that there was the six areas of concern. Were asked to provide detail of what was meant. He taught communication in college. Had them draw a tree, and all were different. Providing more details makes things more clear. Mrs. Voorhies said it is restrictive and it is stuff cities are interested in, but not what board needs. More than happy to communicate about schools with each city. This feels like a belt you keep tightening. Mr. Newton (said with respect again) said cities have to make plans. Those who fail to plan, plan to fail. Asking for plans so we are all on the same page. Mrs. Whitelock said the policy on safe walking routes is already in place. Mr. Newton (said personally again) said he is concerned about 10400 S. Is it wrong to make an interlocal agreement? How is this restrictive if you already agree to the items?

Mr. Osborn said everything here is based on old things, even though Mr. Newton said he doesn't want to rehash old things.  Mrs. Voorhies said she will give him a policy book. We shouldn't have to redefine the policy.  More effective if there is a general agreement that people refer back to. Senator Harper said he understood that the language was worked out. SJC resolution had six items to which the board responded. Suggested an interlocal agreement that focuses on the six items only and just work through them over the course of a year. Mr. Newton wants a binding interlocal agreement. Doesn't want to be involved in every little detail. Just want to talk. Want to keep schools out of high commercial areas. Thought meeting last week was the negotiation. Now the goal posts are moving again. Large concern here is that board in not delivering the items, but discussing moving the dates, which means the cities aren't getting what they want by July 30. Have to hope there is a good faith effort from the board.

Mrs. Whitelock said the board was prepared for the meeting last week with a different agreement. She asked Mr. Newton about the guarantee of no split. Mr. Newton said if they sign an interlocal agreement they won't put it on the ballot. He wanted to come so the board would understand the intent. He is happy to leave with information from Representative Cunningham.  If he leaves and the changes the board makes are too far, they will come back with an interlocal agreement.  Will ask if willing to sign, then it will likely go to the ballot. SJC attorney said he has talked with all the mayors who are very frustrated. A challenge the board needs to reconcile is that cities work with other government agencies through an interlocal agreement. There is no trust. These agreements force people to sit down together and talk. Look at six items in original SJC resolution. Mayor Freeman and Mayor Applegarth did not want to come to pressure the board into anything. Gain interlocal agreement for a year that they will work toward resolving issues. If board and mayors have an agreement, and no legislation is run to make splitting more difficult, then SJC can decide in a year if things are working with the district of not. Need to talk regularly around the table.

Mr. Osborn asked if it is not an interlocal agreement, will the cities agree? SJC attorney said it would make it more difficult for a city to split. More you change original six items, the more cities will push back. He doesn't want to go through another split. Mr. Crane said an interlocal agreement with this much detail is too far from the original six items. If it is general enough to allow flexibility, he could live with interlocal agreement.  Keep it under two pages. Could support interlocal agreement if it is short, general, flexible. Why is the mistrust always with the district? Probably goes both ways. Everybody wants to have good level of trust. (They really need some interest based bargaining training.)

Mrs. Kennett asked what happened to the boards response to the SJC council resolution. Mr. Newton was not present at July 3 meeting. Mr. Seethaler told him that those changes were incorporated into the copy given out at the meeting last Monday. Mrs. Kennett again asked about the intent document, because he didn't answer he question.

SJC attorney said they mayors agree that if the board wants to get this done, the district has not given mayors a lot of comfort. Board took serious actions. Mrs. Pulsipher said there has been tension for a number of years. More restrictive until trust returns. There are more guidelines and less have to, but there is more detail. As move forward in relationship, restrictions will lessen. This is not ideal. She sees the need for more detail. Hopefully a year from now, will not need the agreement anymore.

Mrs. Whitelock said the players all change regularly, the interlocal agreement doesn't change. SJC attorney said if you get the agreement in place, legislators will be watching board and mayors to make sure they don't misbehave again. If board has behaved badly, the legislators will make it easier to split. If cities misbehave, the legislature will revoke the law that allows a district split.

Attorney Joan talked about binding future school boards and a potential split at termination of agreement.  MOU isn't going to work from the citys' perspective. If go with an interlocal agreement, have a sunset provision. Senator Harper pointed out that Mr. Newton cannot speak for SJC council. If board sends an agreement to SJC council to work on original six items, then would that stop a split. Mr. Newton said the goal posts have moved significantly on one item and slightly on one. If we agree to interlocal agreement, there is no vote to put a split on the ballot. The discussion will be focused on if the board has delivered on items from resolution. Needs detail so there is no misunderstanding. Mr. Newton said what district gave cities is not sufficient.

SJC attorney said Mayor Freeman is concerned about the oversight committee. Mr. Crane asked who would draft the language of the interlocal agreement. Wants to work cooperatively. Okay if not too restrictive or overstepping of boundaries. Mrs. Pulsipher said time is the problem. Mr. Newton wants a draft to review on July 30 so they could make changes and finalize by August 5. He wants SJC attorney to draft agreement and then meet with Joan Andrews to revise. He is not concerned about drafting of agreement, but he wants deliverables on a building plan and construction timeline. In giving you more time, cities are moving forward and waiting for deliverables. He feels there is a risk. Mrs Pulsipher said the date has not changed. Mr. Newton said a tentative plan by July 30 is not good enough. Mr. Wall, SJC attorney, said interlocal agreement doesn't solve issues, but buys time. Gives SJC chance to not put split on ballot.

Mr. Osborn said all they need is time for thoughtful discussion. Mrs. Kennett would be comfortable with SJC attorney and their attorney to draft interlocal agreement. Joan Andrews said she is happy to do what they ask, but the timeline is very tight. She has concerns about not having enough time to review. Mr. Wall said it will be much like original MOU with eight items with timelines over the nest year. He wants to be a facilitating lawyer, not an advocate for one side or the other. Mrs. Andrews needs time to review and meet with the board. Mr. Osborn said district administrators need to review to see if timelines are reasonable. He handed a 1 1/2 inch binder to Mr. Wall that is the district response to the SJC resolution. Mr. Wall is going to work off the MOU from the meeting last week. Mr. Wall will fashion it based on benchmarks.

Mr. Wall will start with the MOU draft, but mayors cannot add anything else. Mr. Newton said there will be few specifics. This is the MOU post meeting last week. Final copy after redlines were deleted. Mr. Newton said the board should send specific concerns to Mr. Wall or Mrs. Andrews. She has the agreement from the July 14 meeting.

Mr. Crane concerned about attendance in closed session. He doesn't want the mayors telling district what kind of school to build. Mrs. Pulsipher said number four would be less specific and include some experts who build commercially and not schools to review. Mr. Newton said his perception is that the building review committee of parents and teachers would override the committee of experts. Mra. Pulsipher said item 2 and 4 had most concerns. Have outside experts look at construction processes to see if the district can save money on construction. Mrs. Voorhies wants in the interlocal agreement that SJC will not put it on the ballot. Mr. Newton said his concern is that we don't have the deliverables nor feedback on why it is taking so long. Despite what feasibility study will show, which is positive in many areas, staying in district is possible. A signed interlocal agreement gives a 90-100% chance that SJC will not put a split on the ballot. He said he received information from a legislator that changes things. Mrs. Voorhies said the board is going to trust SJC on this, so "Don't mess with us."

July 30 roll out feasibility study and have public input on it. August 5 vote on whether to put on ballot.

South Jordan City Council Meeting

Below are the notes from people who spoke at the SJC Council meeting.  The feasibility study is supposed to be published before August 1.  SJC will need to hold a special meeting to discuss and decide whether to put a split on the ballot. I will put out information about that meeting as soon as I have it.  Looks like the special meeting to decide about putting a split on the ballot will be July 29.

JEA members in attendance: Heather Reich, James Maughan, Cyndee Bowser, Shannon Diotaiuti, Jenny Pedler, Michelle Robbins, Debbie Warner, Melissa Handy, Mary Meyer, Beth Glattli, Shelly Lloyd, Lori Munk, Mari Bean, Michele Larsen, Jeremy Butterbaugh

Three residents spoke in favor of the split and putting it on the ballot.

Lori Munk, Easltke, spoke against the split as a long time SJC resident.

I read my statement against the split including information from the JEA survey.

Michelle Robbins, Bingham theater teacher, who lives in Clearfield, spoke against a split.  Concerned about losing 5A status. Bingham is flagship of SJC. Cannot isolate ourselves.  A split will tax energy of teachers which will trickle to teachers.

Alexandra Eframo spoke against the split.  There will be extra taxes.  We have to work together. She goes to the school board meetings and has not seen any of them at the meetings.

Tim Ellingson spoke against the split.  Said SJC council bullied school board. Went to SJC university program to widen his perspective.  Council said if district bought land in Daybreak, split would go away, but it didn't. Council said if district made administrative changes, split would go away, but it didn't. Now if sign MOU, split might go away. Embarrassed to be represented by this body.

Cyndee Bowser, West Jordan Elementary, spoke against the split. She wants to make a footprint on the future. Worried that programs for special needs students will go away if split occurs. She will be done if the divorce goes through.

James Maughan, West Hills, spoke against the split. He was on Middle School Building and Design Committee.  He was impressed with priorities of safety, energy efficiency, and cost effectiveness of buildings.  He had just started teaching at time of previous split and the Initial proposal was to layoff over 200 teachers. Students wanted to discuss this, and they realized that class size and discipline problems would increase.  Beware of unintended consequences.

Heather Reich, Majestic, spoke against the split. She read a letter she had sent previously to legislators and mayors. She is a 10 year teacher being paid as a 7 year teacher. Administrative costs have gone up. Worried about loss of programs, curriculum specialists. Hurt students the most.

Mary Meyer, Copper Hills, spoke against the split. Copper Hills is overcrowded with average class size of 40. Previous split created an us versus them. Morale suffered like in a divorce. We had no say in the amount of money Jordan received. Lost collaboration with teachers from Canyons. Kids were worried about teachers leaving. She is breadwinner and concerned about her personal finances.

Gentleman spoke about turf wars of cities. West is the only place for people to move to. Creating more bureaucracy is not the answer.

Mindy Dummer, Valley, spoke against the split.  She teaches at Valley. Canyons students attend Valley, because Canyons did not establish an alternative high school. Consider unintended consequences of a split on students who need an alternative high school setting.

SJC resident visited ASB to help district and West Jordan look at how to develop that area.  He saw efficiencies of economies of scale in touring ASB. Work together as a whole community. He wants to support young families since others supported his students through the education system.

Shannon Diotaiuti, Majestic, spoke against the split.  She remembers what the previous split was like. She knows what it is like for her child to attend inadequate schools. Her son attends West Jordan middle where they really need air conditioning.  The district is trying to equalize things. Nothing goes as fast as we want when it is for our children.  We need to educate all children. Not all future dentists, lawyers and teachers will grow up in your town. Change is hard on kids, but especially hard on special needs kids.

Mayor Alvord pointed out that SJC would need a high school which would cause taxes to increase.

Mr. Newton said the citizens need to have the opportunity to vote.

Feasibility study will be out prior to August 1.

School Board Planning Meeting

I attended part of the School Board Planning Meeting yesterday.  Because it started at 2:00, I missed discussion on the budget and the proposed South Jordan City district split.  I arrived shortly after the board started talking about the recommendations from the Building Utilization Committee.  My notes are below.

 

Discussing building utilization committee recommendations (missed the first 10)

• air conditioning in buildings that don't have it with proceeds from future bond - board would like to do that before another bond - it is too late for a bond for 2014
• STEM or IB magnet program at WJHS - suggestion for STEAM - academies are less expensive than a full on magnet program
• HS boundary change with feeder system alignment - some conflicting recommendations about alignment - overall message of utilizing schools well
• consider carefully before moving support classes
• consider school closures - board needs to decide - would like to try building up the school population first - programs to give parents options - possibly use dual immersion to fill school, not giving preference to students in boundary - possibly use a lottery, like charters, to decide who gets into the program - would need to plan and budget for a program, so this would not be until fall 2015 at earliest - need to notify parents through PTA and SCC - board needs to commit funds, and this is less expensive than building a new school
• shift boundaries between Falcon Ridge and Mountain Shadows - not necessary at this point --boundary changes prior to another bond
• move area of West Hills boundary near Airport 2 to Joel P Jensen - not necessary to this time
• do growth projections by area instead of relying on the 0.8 number from consulting firm CBRE for whole district - may not apply in various areas, some areas may be more than that while other areas may be less - 0.8 includes all residential units - criteria should be more focused
• STEM in all levels in WJ feeder system
• adjust all middle school boundaries - as needed
• keep all walking students at West Hills - doesn't make sense to bus if they can walk
• suspend feeder system alignment until all other changes have been made
• use funds from sale of any property in WJ feeder system for upgrades to WJ schools - not considering sale of schools at this time
• funds from bond for hard walls in WJHS, OHMS, and JPJMS - still have to meet fire code and ADA - could this be pay as you go - look at structure - possible major renovations would be better for a bond
• buy land for future buildings in SJ - this was done last month
• move North Shore students to ERMS - done as needed
• sell WJ elementary - will do other programs to try to fill the seats
• use bond to rebuild WJMS and add STEM program -
• take advantage of SJ (Daybreak) RDA to use money as generated to build an elementary school - reserves builds a little bit every year - lose land when take the money - land would need to be used for administration building, because not large enough for a school - take out debt to build school then use the money from this RDA to make payments on the loan - this could impact a bond - can build using municipal building act, but the interest rate is about double that of a bond - use resources first before asking for a bond
• sell property across from Sunset Ridge to benefit district - there is 50 acres purchased over 40 years ago - looking to trade property elsewhere in WJ - piece in Bluffdale is for sale
• move Oakcrest to YR - parents are expecting this sooner rather than later - as needed
• hire certified professional trained in forecasting - have someone trained to so this job rather than an educator-administrator - planning and projection is only part of what this position entails - also does education law working with the attorney - works with foreign exchange students - communicates with charters to know what students will be where for the benefit of students - credibility comes with certain types of licensure
• hire certified construction manager to oversee buildings - same idea as one before  - would still have a learning curve on the education side of things - merged departments at the time of the split when the previous construction director retired - the construction department people have these types of certifications
• use Mtn. View Corridor as boundary between Sunset Ridge and West Hills
• use WJ city line as boundary for ERMS - no - board does not want this
• implement ROTC at all high schools - have tried to implement in the past - there are scholarship opportunities - Must dedicate a classroom and ones faculty member - this could be a magnet program - charter board has approved a military academy within JSD to open in 2015
• use bond for a new middle school in west WJ
• renovate and add classrooms to existing buildings - semi permanent rather than portables - would they need to add restrooms and drinking fountains - relocatable with 3-4 classrooms in it connected to the building with a hallway
• if close WJ elementary, allow students to chose which school they go to for one year, but after that, go to boundary school - moot point
• maintain all current buildings
• exhaust all resources before another bond - it takes a long time to build trust, which needs to be done before another bond
• sell property to renovate other buildings - two properties in Bluffdale now - have 60 acres in Herriman that developers often call about - hang on to property for trade later
• use mobile technology and computer labs to increase building capacity - until all schools are one-to-one devices we can't lose the computer labs in schools
• all WJ elementary students to same school if it is closed - moot point
• utilize pocket busing instead of portables - let developers of new areas know that all students in new neighborhood would be bused to a school farther away - when the school is good, patrons are better with it - possible future need
• sell ASB and move shops to high schools and put auxiliary personnel in portables - there is discussion of selling ASB - not in favor of putting shops in high schools or other personnel in portables
• consider school closures only when funds are available to build future schools - use seats have

 Plans for future growth

• reviewing these options helped to focus plans for future growth
• fill current seats with special programs
• reallocate assets
• build trust through those actions
• go for bond at later time after all the previous have been met
• put together a paper that states the steps the board will take for planning for growth
• looking at maps and data of approved developments
• charter school information - expect 2-4 new built every year - existing charters approved to increase their enrollment - not required to evaluate teachers or provide transportation but still have to do SAGE - not subject to federal oversight for school improvement - what do parents consider when choosing a school - meeting child's needs, customer service, teacher - schools have a feeling, which is caused by the people who work there
• community involvement - paper newsletter sent out maybe quarterly - more k-12 online course available
• put out 10 items the district is going to work on - don't put dates, just priorities that are reasonable and manageable
• trust is an outcome of doing a good job - build community involvement
• disseminate information about finances in different ways

Administrative Assignments

This list was approved at the Study Session on Tuesday, so principals have been telling their faculties.  These assignments will be formally announced at the School Board Meeting on Tuesday.

Lisa Robinson, Director of Special Education
Nancy Ward, Coordinator of Educational Support Services
Mandy Thurman, Principal at Oquirrh Elementary
Becky Gerber, Consultant of Language Arts
Kim Gibson, Principal at Herriman Elementary
Kyle Hansen, Principal at Eastlake Elementary
Travis Hamblin, Human Resources Staff Specialist
Larry Urry, Principal at Sunset Ridge Middle
Wyatt Bentley, Principal at Elk Ridge Middle
Howard Griffith, Principal at Foothills Elementary
David Vicchrilli, Principal at Jordan Hills Elementary
Barb Yost, Principal at Westland Elementary
Patty Bowen, Assistant Principal at West Hills Middle
Tyler Jones, Assistant Principal at South Hills Middle
Tiffany Cooke, Assistant Principal at Jordan Ridge and Southland Elementary Schools
Jerri Mausbach, Assistant Principal at Midas Creek and Silver Crest Elementary Schools
Ronna Hoffman, Assistant Principal at Riverside and Oakcrest Elementary Schools
Cyndy Tingey, Assistant Principal at Daybreak and Eastlake Elementary Schools
Rebecca Lee, Assistant Principal at Blackridge and Foothills Elementary Schools
Mike Christensen, Assistant Principal at Bingham High
Richard Price, Assistant Principal at Herriman High
Gail Ritz, Assistant Principal at Copper Hills High
Arthur Erickson, Assistant Principal at Riverton High

South Jordan City District Split Talks

As you have seen in the news, South Jordan City has decided to move forward with a feasibility study about splitting from Jordan District.  A flyer with inaccurate information was distributed over the weekend.  We need to be educators of the public about the harm that will come to students should another split occur! 

As JEA President, I have attended nearly every open study session and school board meeting over the last four years.  Based on my experience, I can also speak to some of the misinformation in the flyer.

"Jordan School District kept important information from voters during last year's bond election debate!"  I was involved with the bond campaign from the beginning.  The Jordan District and Friends of Jordan School District were very open and trying to get the information out using websites, social media, and open houses.

"Now that they are planning on it (bond election) again, but here's what they didn't want you to know last time --"  First, this is not a grammatically correct sentence.  That teacher bit aside, I have heard very little discussion on a future bond.  Occasionally, a board member will say that they want to run a bond again in November.  Others will then say the district needs to wait 2-3 years.  The decision to try for a bond again has not been made.

"On their website, they pointed to South Jordan's growth as a reason to build new schools, but in the first bond they planned for schools in Riverton, Herriman, West Jordan and Bluffdale, but not in South Jordan."  The Bingham feeder system is most of South Jordan.  A new elementary school was to be built in South Jordan from the bond funds.

"The State Legislature is giving South Jordan one chance, this year, to decide if they want to split off."  A law was passed that stated if a district were to split that the property tax revenue to one district cannot be more than 5% higher than the property tax revenue for the other district.  This was a major problem in the Jordan/Canyons split.  Jordan had 60% of the students and 40% of the tax base, while Canyons had 40% of the students and 60% of the tax base.  If South Jordan doesn't decide to vote on a split this year, they still could in the future, there would just be more restrictions.

Back in February, the South Jordan Journal ran an article about a possible South Jordan split from Jordan District.  I wrote a letter to the editor that was published in March.

Dear Editor and South Jordan residents,

I am concerned with the South Jordan City Council looking to form its own school district. I am against this for many reasons including costs, quality of education, and employee morale.
There are students living in South Jordan City boundaries who attend Herriman or Copper Hills High, Copper Mountain Middle, Midas Creek Elementary and other schools on permit. Current schools in South Jordan city boundaries are not large enough to hold all the students living in South Jordan City. This means new schools would need to be built necessitating a bond.

The Jordan/Canyons split in 2009 cost $33 million through months of negotiations and mediation with transition teams from both sides. In addition, Jordan District had to cut $17 million in the 2010-2011 budget year. These cuts hurt students. One example is the money for aides in Special Education classes being reduced leaving those students who are the most needy without the support to help them be successful. Canyons District promised no tax increases, but within two years, property taxes had increased and a bond was passed to build a new high school and rebuild several other schools.

The quality of education students receive will suffer. Jordan District has an excellent curriculum department that provides many resources for teachers at all levels. The new district would likely be unable to hire those types of specialists, leaving teachers on their own to create curriculum. As an elementary teacher, I appreciate having those specialists who can align curriculum to the Utah Core, provide quality assessments, and give curriculum maps for pacing subjects taught throughout the year. If my time had to be spent doing those types of activities for all the subjects I’m required to teach, there would be less time for me to work with students and provide them with the feedback they need to improve.

Many employees on both sides of the Jordan/Canyons split felt like they were just assets assigned to a building. The morale is just now, five years later, beginning to improve. Employees have not received their step increases three of the last five years. While this is a different pay system than in other industries, when teachers are hired, the District explains the pay system, so there is an expectation that has not been met. If South Jordan were to break off to form their own school district, employee salary increases in both districts would likely be nonexistent. At the time of the Jordan/Canyons split, I felt discouraged and frustrated with my career. I have become more optimistic as I have utilized the tools provided by Jordan District. I am proud to have been teaching in Jordan District for 22 years.

Please stop the discussion on breaking away from Jordan District now!

Jennifer Boehme
South Jordan resident and Elk Meadows teacher

Oppose Republican Resolution on Partisan School Board Elections

There is a new resolution that will be proposed in the 2014 Utah Republican Nominating Convention on April 26, 2014 that you may want to review asap.  We are asking that, for those of you who are Republican, to contact your Republican delegates immediately and ensure they vote NO on the Resolution to Promote Partisan School Board Elections.  Here is some helpful background:

·        The resolution is titled Resolution to Promote Partisan School Board Elections and is at the end of this post and can also be found on the Utah Republican Party website at:  http://www.utgop.org/utgop.asp where you can “click here to view submitted Amendments and Resolutions that will be considered at the convention.”  It is the fourth displayed item.

·        Astoundingly, the resolution states that “. . . most school board members seem to welcome federal control of education, and fail to understand that states are (or should be) sovereign with respect to education, . . .”  and then resolves that “legislators affiliated with the Utah Republican Party are encouraged to enact and support legislation that would make candidates for Utah’s State Board of Education and school districts subject to partisan nomination and election .”

 

·        The resolution to be considered by the upcoming Republican convention has only 6 sponsors listed in support.  The chief sponsor is Oak Norton, a resident of Utah County who remains regularly agitated about public education.

 

·        Partisan politics has no place in the State Board and certainly not in our local school boards of education.  A bill to support partisan state school board elections in the most recent legislative session was strongly opposed by UEA and it failed.  This Republican resolution concerning local school boards clearly does not reflect the view of Utah’s public and the parents whose children attend our neighborhood schools. 

 

In order to oppose this resolution, you will need to contact the Republican delegates and state leaders from your area that are invited to attend the 2014 Utah Republican Nominating (State) Convention on April 26, 2014.  Thus, your contact must occur before April 26^th.  Delegate contact information can be found by calling the Utah Republican Party offices at 801-533-9777 and asking for the names of your state Republican delegates.  Knowing your precinct is helpful.  Thank you!

Resolution to Promote Partisan School Board Elections

WHEREAS, Abraham Lincoln said, “The philosophy of the school room in one generation will become the philosophy of government in the next;” and,

WHEREAS, experience shows that the views of school board members find their way into the classroom; and,

 WHEREAS, most citizens do not know how school board members view important issues such as religious reedom, state and family sovereignty, private property, Second Amendment, limited government, and American Exceptionalism; and,

 WHEREAS, the Republican Party has an excellent vetting system by which grassroots-elected delegates can identify who among the candidates will best adhere to the principles in our party platform, most notably the principles of fiscal responsibility and local control of education; and,

 WHEREAS, approximately 65% of our state budget goes to education; and,

 WHEREAS, school district budgets, whose district officers are determined via non-partisan elections, in some cases exceed county budgets, whose county officers are determined via partisan elections; and,

 WHEREAS, most school board members seem to welcome federal control of education, and fail to understand that states are (or should be) sovereign with respect to education; and,

 WHEREAS, in Texas—where school board elections are partisan—when “Common Core” was presented to the states, Texas rejected it and created their own high-quality standards; and,

 WHEREAS, choosing school board members via partisan election is not about partisanship in education, but is about ensuring the selection of candidates whose principles match those found in the party platform.

 WHEREAS, state school board nominees are currently selected by an unelected panel—unaccountable to the public,

 THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, legislators affiliated with the Utah Republican Party are encouraged to enact and support legislation that would make candidates for Utah’s State Board of Education and school districts subject to partisan nomination and election; and,

 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT delegates to the Utah Republican Party Convention are encouraged

to research and vet state and local school board candidates, in order to identify the candidate(s) who will best support limited government and local control of education; and,

 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Utah Republican Party is encouraged to host debates for state school board candidates and conduct a straw poll among state delegates, wherein state delegates living within a given state school board district may cast a non-binding vote for their choices of state school board members, and that the results of this straw poll be made public on the party web site; and,

 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT county parties are encouraged to host debates for school board

candidates and conduct straw polls among county delegates, wherein county delegates living within local school board districts may cast a non-binding vote for their choices of local district board members, and that the results of these straw polls be made public on county party web sites.

 Respectfully submitted to the Utah Republican Party on March 26, 2014

 Sponsor: Oak Norton, HI 07         

Co-Sponsors: Kimberly Park, TA 11, Jennifer Orten, HI 06, Tina Okolowitz, Orem 38, Marie Nuccitelli, LE16, and Aaron Hymas, MAG004

 

 

Proposed Boundary Changes

To ease overcrowding, and due to the new elementary school that will open in Herriman next fall, the District has put together options for boundary changes.  You can view the options online.  A survey for patrons to provide input on the options will be available for the next six weeks at which time the Board will review the survey results and make a decision on how to proceed.  No matter which option is chosen, Elk Meadows and Terra Linda will return to a Year Round Schedule for the 2014-15 school year.  The new elementary school in Herriman will open on a Year Round Schedule.

Jordan District Bond

The JEA Executive Board voted to remain neutral on the Jordan District bond issue.  While the members of the JEA Executive Board recognize the need for the bond, and that should the bond not pass, it would be the students (and teachers) who would suffer, they also realize that those who teach and live in the district are hit twice:  once, in not having steps paid 3 of the last 5 years with only a 1% COLA four years ago, and second, by having their taxes raised.  Opening new buildings costs in ongoing operations beyond what the bond pays for. 

JEA has members who are helping with the bond campaign and who have spoken at the School Board and City Council meetings in support of the bond.

I encourage all JEA members to become informed on the bond and vote if they live in the Jordan District boundaries.  We need to look at the big picture and do what is best for students!

Bond Info

A summary of the school board study session about a proposed bond was sent to me.

The board is going to request a 5-year bond of  $520 million, which is about $14 per month per $100,000 of assessed valuation. A committee will be formed to look at how to spend the bond money in the most efficient manner. The bond will be used not just for new buildings but for renovations to existing buildings.

The Board has asked district administration to prepare multiple plans for boundary changes and closing schools and how those actions would impact a bond. While the survey showed patrons would support closing schools and boundary changes, the Board wants some actual plans to see if this would still be supported when parents see how their children would be impacted.

The next study session to discuss the bond will be Tuesday, July 30 beginning at 3:00.

Administrative Appointments

Last night at the school board meeting, administrative appointments were made.

Sara Palmer, Director of Payroll
Mike Anderson, Administrator of Schools over Riverton Feeder
Jill Durrant, Administrator of Schools Staff Assistant
Amanda Edwards, Silver Crest Principal
Terry Price, Oquirrh Hills Assistant Principal
Nicole Plenert, CTE Consultant
Brad Sorensen, Administrator of Schools over Herriman Feeder
Carolyn Gough, Riverton High Principal
Ben Jameson, South Hills Principal
Aaron Hunter, Joel P. Jensen Assistant Principal
Mike Kochevar, West Jordan High Principal
Tom Gatten, Bingham Assistant Principal
Christen Richards-Khong, Bingham Principal
Chris Titus, JATC Principal
Mike Hughes, Bingham Assistant Principal
Kim Searle, Copper Hills Assistant Principal
Don Link, River's Edge Principal
Sharon Jensen, Vally Principal
Dixie Crowther, West Jordan Middle Principal
Paul Bergera, Auxiliary Services Staff Assistant
Michelle Peterson, Falcon Ridge Principal
Tami Bird, Rose Creek Principal
Noel Grabl, Curriculum
Todd Theobold, Majestic Principal
Jacinto Peterson, Copper Mountain Assistant Principal
Caleb Olson, West Hills Assistant Principal
Cynthia Vandermeiden, Joel P. Jensen Assistant Principal
Melisa Lund, Curriculum
Glen Varga, West Jordan Middle Assistant Principal
Tyler Jones, Hayden Peak/Riverside Assistant Principal
Cody Curtis, South Jordan Middle Assistant Principal
Wyatt Bentley, West Hills Assistant Principal
Karen Gorringe, West Jordan High Assistant Principal
Cynthia Tingey, Eastlake Assistant Principal
Mandy Braby, Foothills Assistant Principal
Kim Gibson, Southland/Elk Meadows Assistant Principal
Tiffany Cooke, Herriman/Silver Crest Assistant Principal
Patty Bowen, Jordan Ridge/Monte Vista Assistant Principal
Jerri Mausbach, Rose Creek/Daybreak Assistant Principal

Six of them are JEA members who are choosing to remain members even after becoming principals!

Relationship By Objective

On March 21 and 22, members of the JEA Negotiations Team met with members of Jordan District Administration and School Board in a Relationship by Objective Training facilitated by LaVonne Ritter, the Federal Mediator who has worked with us over the past four years.  The goal of the training was to move from an adversarial relationship to a collaborative partnership.  Recognizing the many pressures facing public education, we must work together to find solutions that are mutually beneficial to all parties.  Improving the quality of the working relationship between the District and JEA will improve the quality of education students receive.

Roxane Siggard, Richard Osborn, Dr. Patrice Johsnon, Vicki Olsen, Susan Pulsipher, Tiffany Hardinger, Melissa Brown, Jennifer Boehme, Heather Reich, Cindy Carroll, Scott Thomas, Dr. Anthony Godfrey

Richard Osborn, Isael Hermasillo (mediator in training), Dr. Patrice Johnson, Vicki Olsen, Susan Pulsipher, LaVonne Ritter (mediator), Tiffany Hardinger, Melissa Brown, Jennifer Boehme, Heather Reich, Cindy Carroll, Scott Thomas, Dr. Anthony Godfrey

Our signatures committing to the objectives we set during the training.

New School Board

Tonight the new school board members were sworn in.  Richard Osborn is the President, Susan Pulsipher is the Vice President, with Janice Voorhies as the Secretary (a new position from the new policy governance documents).

Election Results

I'm sure you are all aware of the results of the headline races like president, governor, and U.S. representatives.  In Utah Legislative races in the Jordan District area, the following won:

• Senate District 6:  Wayne Harper
• Senate District 10: Aaron Osmond
• House District 42: Jim Bird
• House District 43:  Earl Tanner
• House Distict 47: Ken Ivory
• House District 50:  Rich Cunningham
• House District 52:  John Knotwell

The results for members of the Jordan District Board of Education are:

• Precinct 1: J. Lynn Crane
• Precinct 4: Kayleen Whitelock
• Precinct 5: Richard Osborn
• Precinct 6: Janice Voorhies

Meet the Candidates Follow Up

The PTA Meet the Candidates Night was fairly successful.  Most of the JEA recommended candidates were in attendance. I saw several JEA members there and appreciate their efforts to be informed voters.

I spent a bit of time talking to the two candidates for State School Board.  One of them encouraged me to go look at his answers to the questionnaires.  I am attaching links here to both of their questionnaires.  If you live in another school district, you can go to United Way and find your State School Board candidate responses.

For most of Jordan District, the candidates are Jefferson Moss and Sergio Vasquez.  Click on their names to read their questionnaires.

School Board Meeting

My comments about the negotiated agreement to the School Board at last night's meeting are below. 

President Bojak, members of the Board, Dr. Johnson, and Mr. Jolley, the membership of JEA has voted to ratify this contract and I encourage you to vote for it as well.  While the negotiations process has been long and difficult, teachers are grateful for steps and lanes this year and the ability to continue negotiating policies that impact our salary, benefits, and working conditions.

JEA appreciates the amendment to GP 115 in recognizing negotiated policies.  Thank you for making that change.

The majority of teachers in Jordan District want to do what is best for students.  They take classes on how best to implement the new Core.  They work with their team or department in PLCs, collaborating and helping each other know how best to work with students to show learning gains.  Collaboration is needed at every level of this District, including in classrooms, schools, departments, the Administration, the School Board, and between the Administration and JEA, and the Board and JEA.  JEA’s mission is a Great Public School For Every Child.  Jordan District’s mission is to “Provide excellent educational opportunities for all students and ensure quality teachers, administrators and support staff.”  You need us, the quality educators who work with students every day, to make this mission happen.  Let us work toward more effective collaboration in all that we do.

School Board Meeting

Thanks to all the JEA members who attended the School Board Meeting last night.  We had about 50 people there in blue shirts.  All who spoke to the Board were respectful and spoke from their hearts!  I was asked to post my comments.  If others who spoke have their comments to post here, please do so, or email them to me to add.  You can see general summary of comments on the JEA Facebook page.

President Bojak, members of the Board, Superintendent Johnson, and Mr. Jolley, I stand before you tonight to express the disappointment felt by members of the Jordan Education Association regarding the negotiations process chosen by the Board this year.  With the election of new school board members and the appointment of a new superintendent, employees throughout the District felt calm, happy, and hopeful that morale was turning around.  The JEA Negotiations Team was looking forward to collaboration that Interest-based Bargaining brings.  That hope was lost when JEA was informed that the Board chose to “broker” negotiations by sending an attorney to the bargaining table.  The attorney you chose is not respected by his colleagues and is not a friend of public education in general. 

            As a school board, you have embraced collaboration and encourage collaboration at all levels of the District; yet, sending a broker to negotiations prevented collaboration.  As a school board you are all in support of the Leader in Me program in the elementary schools; yet, sending a broker, a person who is not invested in the success of students in the District, made synergy used to reach a win-win situation impossible.  As a school board and administration, you tell teachers how valuable and important they are; yet, teachers do not see your actions matching your words.  If the end you had in mind was to improve educator morale, you have not succeeded.

            JEA members are very concerned over the language in your proposal that would take away our right to negotiate policies that impact educator benefits and working conditions, some of which have been negotiated since 1969.  Based on a Dan Jones Survey in 2011, the public is in favor of teachers having a say in their salary, benefits, and working conditions.  As the president of JEA, I share these concerns in the hope that mediation will proceed in a more collaborative manner.

Comments by Heather Reich

My name is Heather Reich.  I teach sixth graders at Majestic Elementary and I love my job.  The only things I don’t love about the “3 Rs” are the 3 Ps: Paperwork, Politics, and Pay.

Paperwork – I know you can’t do anything about that.  I am learning to manage this as I gain more experience and knowledge about my profession.

Politics – That’s you.  You’re elected officials.  You have to please your constituents.  Like me – I’m your constituent.  My students’ parents are your constituents.  We want you to support public education by fairly compensating teachers.  Students in Jordan District deserve the best teachers – highly qualified teachers – not just the most affordable ones.  New teachers are working in Jordan District for three years, benefitting from our Mentoring Program, earning career status and leaving.  That is not what’s best for our kids and our community.  Just as teachers will leave the district – your voters will leave you if you fail to invest in experienced and well-educated teachers.

Pay – You can help with this, too.  Jordan’s last offer to teachers was a two-year deal that would fund steps and lanes for one year and not the next.  This means that you have the money to fund steps and lanes – at least for a year.  This year.  Offer teachers a one-year deal.

Please participate in negotiations and do as twenty-two other districts have done and fund steps and lanes.  Let us know you care about students in your district as much as other districts care about theirs.  Invest in experienced teachers who increase their own education.  That’s what’s best for the kids of Jordan School District.

Comments by Glenda Adams

Dear Board,

I’ve come to speak to you today because I am so disappointed in your decision to stop open communication with your employees by bringing in a broker/lawyer to the talks about salary and policy decisions. How is this going to help build a trusting relationship with your employees? I believe it will tear apart what has been building over the last year.

My school has recently been training to implement the 7 habits of the leader in me within our school. This isn’t a new program but rather a new way to build lasting habits for life. These habits are to help our students and us to learn and practice daily tools/habits to put our best efforts first. It is to teach us how to build deep lasting, highly effective relationships with other people in our school/workplace and at home. Habits such as; Seek First to Understand, then to be Understood, to Think Win-Win and to Synergize by working together for better solutions.

Your actions to stop open collaborative talk with your employees are speaking louder than you words and do not show a highly effective relationships with us. This board along with our new superintendent started to make positive steps forward with their employees by meeting with us but I’m sad to say that now your actions will begin crumbling the foundation of our trust. No one will win, there will be no best efforts to build upon and working together for better solutions will not be decided collaboratively. 

Please reconsider your decision to communicate with employees solely through a lawyer/broker. Let’s come to the table to help all of us work together for better solutions. Let’s all win and be proud of our “new” “kinder” ‘better and effective’ district that we have been working on up until now.

Thank you, Glenda Adams

Comments from James Maughan

Board Members and Superintendent Johnson:

On June 25, teachers in the district received a statement via email describing the current impasse in negotiations.  I would like to respond to this statement.

It is true that the JEA rejected your litigating attorney’s tainted offer of lane increases.  The offer was rejected because teachers refuse to relinquish 30 plus years of negotiated policies that have improved working conditions for teachers and learning environments for students.  Your attorney’s goal, and I assume yours, since he is your representative, is to eliminate collective bargaining for teachers.  This is unacceptable.

The statement also mentions the unsolicited two percent bonus awarded to teachers last year.  In other words, the board secretly appropriated a $4 million benefit without consulting the professional teachers’ association.  This was done strategically.  Teachers were not bumped up on the salary schedule, thereby avoiding future financial obligations, and the board would appear generous to the public.

I would also like to clarify the phrase “a substantial salary increase.”  We teachers are not asking you to fund extravagant lifestyles.  We are simply asking you to honor the promises you made when you hired us; if we remained loyal to the district and provided a quality education for the students, we would be compensated accordingly.  You have failed.

Finally, the statement suggests that a choice must be made between providing a quality education for students and boosting the needs and morale of teachers.  The choice is false.  We teachers provide the best education we can with the resources you have provided, and will continue to do so.  However, if you cannot provide competitive financial compensation, highly effective teachers will seek positions with other districts.  Ultimately, the families in the Jordan School District will suffer.

You, Jordan School Board must provide resources for recruiting and retaining excellent teachers, and thus a quality education for the students.

I have just publicly reprimanded and criticized you.  I now invite you to visit my classroom – any day, any period, and let me know how I am performing.

Thank you.

Comments by Robin Frodge

Good evening Board, Superintendent, and Mr. Jolley.

 My name is Robin Frodge, and I am a Special Education teacher at West Jordan High School.

 I was very disappointed in my school district when I heard that even though Jordan's nighboring districts were offering steps, lanes, and COLAs, Jordan was not making a similar offer to its employees.

 I do not know why the School Board didn't direct the District Office to prepare a budget that included funding for employee salary increases similar to other school districts'. That is a major piece of how we will restore employee morale and ensure quality schools for Jordan District students.

 I encourage the Board at this point to quickly move toward a positive resolution of negotiations with your employees.

 Thank you.