Re: School Levy

["Frederick R. Cunningham" <frc@moscow.com>]

I'm replying without any precise facts, as I am not employed by the district,
but my Mother has been for 25 years or so, so I have an idea about how sub days
work in general.  An important point to make is that these are not "sick days"
in general, although a few days may be lost for that reason.  Speaking from what
I've seen my Mom do with her time off, it seems that most days a sub is in the
classroom are when a teacher is participating in a required workshop, class, or
training day.  Again, I can't give you numbers, but teachers are required to
complete an immense amount of ongoing education to comply with government
standards.  And yes, I agree it would be nice if someone in the district could
give a better picture of teacher benefits.  It's certainly something to
consider, even though I feel the teachers in our districts deserve every
advantage they can get out of their hard-won contracts.
Thanks,
Fred

Bruce and Jean Livingston wrote:

> I have been inclined to support the school levy and probably still am,
> despite this distubing note from John Danahy:
>
>     The district currently pays for 4000 sub days.  That is the equivalent
> of more than 4 weeks per full time certified position.  Or 11% of the time
> your child spends in class is with a sub.  Cutting the sub days by 50% would
> provide enough funds to pay for the Junior High Teams with funds left over
> for the reserves.  Yet, we are not being asked to support 4000 sub days, we
> are being threatened with the loss of the Junior High Teams.  Why?
>
> Can someone enlighten us on this?  I find it impossible to believe that this
> information is correct and that every full-time teacher is taking time off
> in this order of magnitude.  Could it be that sub days are authorized in
> this obscene amount but not used?  Certainly, most employers give their
> employees something on the order of a week or two of sick days per year.
> Four weeks of sick days in a nine month year seems grossly high and a likely
> target for concessions in a labor contract.