DECEMBER 1: What they said… “When things are good, we need to plan for a possible bad future.”

Nutrition & Schedule: EMUEA responded to District’s last proposal by proposing a one-year only implementation of the nutrition break. During this time, each site would review schedules, research/visit other sites, listen to the district’s concerns and do whatever is necessary to come to some consensus. This would be followed by a vote where a 75% majority of the site staff would select a schedule—including nutrition—that works for their students & site. This preserves the existing contract language about professionals choosing the schedule—block vs traditional—six vs seven periods—that works.  

District said “yes” to the one-year implementation, “yes” to a site vote for Nutrition Break placement.  District still insists on cutting each site’s right to “adjust its scheduling of instructional and preparation periods…with the concurrence of 75% of site certificated staff”.  Despite a plethora of Doctors of Education, District does not want to  present evidence, measure outcomes, take time to make a case, and vote—uniformity will simply be imposed.

Class Size: EMUEA re-submitted our proposal which District has so far ignored: most classes capped at no more than 32 students per period/160 students per day—with language for paying teachers for any “emergency” need by the district to surpass these numbers.

District said “yes” to class caps at 37 for all classes except “Honors/Accelerated/AP/Academy/ AVID classes…” as well as all instrumental music, all choral music, all auxiliary units to Marching Band, all Associated Student Body Classes, Dance, Colorguard/Drill Team, Yearbook, Journalism, Drama, Athletics, and PE.  These classes would have no  limit on the number of students crammed in...  District removed the contract language related to “recommended class size divisors” and removed our proposed language related to “student and teacher safety.”

Salary & Fringe: EMUEA countered the District’s “3% on schedule + 4% off” salary proposal. EMUEA said “NO” to cancelling health insurance for retirees and “NO” to any cap on benefits.

District moved to 4% on schedule + 4% off.  District again proposed killing retiree benefits starting with new hires after January 2017 instead of 2016.  District moved to a  cap of $14,500 for medical only: “It’s generous.”

---

DECEMBER 1: What they mean…

District got over $10,000,000 in new money this year—money meant to directly address the inequities of poverty and language specific to our neighborhood.  When asked why—in light of this—the Superintendent did not propose a package better designed to attract and retain superb teachers—the key way to redress the inequities—the District only said “it’s a choice.”  It’s also a choice to cap insurance.  A hard cap means the district no longer has a stake in negotiating with insurance brokers for the best prices and plans—all new costs go directly to you.

Assuming insurance costs stay the same(!), a new teacher considering EMUHSD, with a new baby at home, will be faced with this EMUHSD reality—with United Health Care HMO for example:

Oct. 1st Salary + Ben. Pkg	New Oct. 1st Sal (4%) + Ben.	Retirement “Gap” Insurance
4374.36 + 1762.96 = 6137.32 Pays $300.04 for ins. = 5837.32	4549.34 + 1450 = 5999.34 Pay 300.04+362.96  = 5336.34	None.  Absolutely must work until 65 or later—or face possible financial ruin.

EMUHSD district does one thing: educate El Monte kids.  So if the district isn’t putting this new money into getting the best teachers into El Monte classrooms and keeping them there, into taking care of them if they must retire early after sacrificing their health for El Monte, into guaranteeing classes under 32 to give El Monte kids the same chances in life that a kid in a charter or private school might have — what the hell are they doing with it?