Take Action 

MSTA ANTI-BARGAINING BILL FOR TEACHERS
HCS/HB 2059 (Kevin Wilson) is now on House Calendar. SCS/SB 1158 (Rob Mayer) on the Senate Calendar. With only four weeks remaining in session, both chambers are likely to stop working on perfecting their own bills by the end of the week This means that both bills could be taken up for debate at any time this week.
Missouri NEA strongly opposes both bills. The bills discriminate against teachers by treating them unfairly, denying them their right to select a single representative with a legal duty to represent all employees.
An effective bargaining process must have a unified employee voice. Piecing a bargaining team together from various groups builds a communications gap into the process and leaves teachers scrambling for a cohesive voice. The bills would force teachers to form a representative council, an extra layer of bureaucracy, which would make reaching agreement difficult.
The bills even allow the school board to modify the "agreement" without consulting the council, thus making it unlikely that districts and employees would actually construct binding agreements.
The bills would make collective bargaining a more difficult and less effective process for teachers than for other employees, and it leaves them once again with fewer rights than other public employees. Unlike an elected representative, whose right to represent employees can be removed if it fails to represent them fairly, the council can not be held accountable, disbanded or replaced with an elected representative organization, even if the council is totally dysfunctional.
Of the 35 states where teachers bargain collectively, no state uses a process similar to the one proposed in these bills. The bargaining model that has proven effective over time in state after state is the exclusive representation model. In a historic decision in May 2007, the Missouri Supreme Court restored the right of all public employees (including teachers) to bargain collectively with employers. MSTA fought against collective bargaining for years and filed a brief last year urging the Supreme Court to deny teachers a voice in the collective bargaining process,
Missouri NEA believes that HB 2030 (Jenee` Lowe) and SB 1115 (Joan Bray) will treat all employees affected by the Court decision fairly. HB 2030 and SB 1115 were built on consensus among public employee groups, including teachers. Missouri NEA believes every child has the basic right to attend a great public school, and nothing should dilute the voice of teachers in how that is accomplished.

ACTION NEEDED: Your help is needed. If you haven't already done so, please call, write or e-mail to urge your state representative and state senator to oppose SCS/SB 1158 and HCS/HB 2059, the teacher anti-bargaining bills. The following link will connect you to the MNEA Legislative Action Center Action Alert on SB 1158 and HB 2059. The Action Alert contains a brief summary and an editable message box to help you send an email to your state representative and state senator on the issue.

MNEA challenges students in essay, poster contests

Law Day Essay Contest

The 2008 Law Day Essay Contest is sponsored by the Missouri NEA Public Relations Committee and the Missouri Bar Young Lawyers' Section. Students in grades 4-12 can win up to $300 in U.S. savings bonds by answering the following prompt:

How do laws help or hurt a free society?

Essays must be received by the regional judging coordinators no later than Feb. 4. Contest details can be found at www.mnea.org/classkids/lawdayessay.htm

Martin Luther King Jr. Poster Contest

The Missouri NEA Human Rights Committee and the Missouri Bar Young Lawyers Section will sponsor the 2008 Martin Luther King Jr. Poster Contest for K-12 students. "Embracing Diversity: Increasing Our Unity through the Teachings of Martin Luther King Jr.” is this year's theme.

First-, second- and third-place winners will be chosen at several levels: K–1, 2–3, 4–5, 6–8 and 9–12. Students will be awarded U.S. savings bonds equaling $100, $75 or $50 depending on place. Teachers of winning students will also receive a prize—gift cards—$50 (first place), $30 (second place) and $20 (third place).

Entries must be postmarked by Feb. 15, 2008. For more information and entry forms, visit www.mnea.org/classkids/MLKcontest.htm or contact Daryl Hemenway at (888) 968-4820.

'No Child Left Behind' Act/ESEA

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), renamed the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, established laudable goals -- high standards and accountability for the learning of all children.

However, the law must be fundamentally improved and federal lawmakers need to provide adequate funding if NCLB is to achieve its goal. Congress is reconsidering the legislation in 2007, offering an opportunity to make it more workable and more responsive to the real needs of children.

NEA is in the forefront of the effort to improve the No Child Left Behind Act. We have developed a comprehensive Positive Agenda for the ESEA Reauthorization that spells out detailed recommendations to make the law better.

Quick Links
•  NEA Positive Agenda for ESEA
•  Top Legislative Priorities
•  Messages to Congress
•  Members' NCLB Stories
•  NCLB in the News
•  NEA Legislative Action Center
•  Discussion Board
•  Joint Organizational Statement
•  Lawsuit Challenges NCLB
•  Background on NCLB/ESEA

NCLB - Step by Step
A history of NCLB—a look at the intermittent highs and more consistent lows of the law since 2002. | Timeline
NEA will focus on three priority areas in working with Congress as it considers the reauthorization of NCLB/ESEA:
  • Use more than test scores to measure student learning and school performance.
    • Include multiple measures of student learning and school effectiveness instead of the current one-day snapshot based solely on standardized tests.
    • Reward progress over time to improve student achievement at all levels.
    • Recognize individual needs of students (Special Education; English Language Learners.
  • Reduce class size to help students learn.
    • Restore the class size reduction program.
  • Increase the number of highly qualified teachers in our schools.

    • Provide financial incentives to teachers who teach in hard-to-staff schools.
    • Allow teachers who have achieved certification by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards to be deemed "highly qualified."
    • Provide flexibility for teachers of multiple subjects, including special education and rural educators.

Even the Department of Education has recognized problems in the existing law and has  instituted changes that provide some needed flexibility to certain regulations.

NEA believes the changes made so far are steps in the right direction, but more significant changes are needed in order to make the law workable and effective. We hope you will join us by urging your elected representatives in Congress to support legislative proposals that will improve NCLB.

For background information on key broad areas of the law see:


NEA Says Bush Veto of Funding Bill 'Attack against Children'
President George W. Bush’s veto of an education spending bill would wipe out 45 federal education programs and cripple others, leaving some of the neediest students without essential programs they need to succeed in school. NEA called the threat a politically-motivated attack against children and urged lawmakers to stand their ground. More

Parent Power Offers Help for All Grade Levels
Parent Power, A Major Ingredient in the Recipe for Educational Success offers "Home Learning Recipes" for children at various grade levels. It’s the educational equivalent of those cookbooks that provide quick, nutritious recipes. More

 Added 10/16/07

nea_today_masthead.gif

October 2007

Cover Story


In Your Corner

How NEA protects members from false accusations and unfair treatment.

By Alain Jehlen

Sometimes, life’s not fair.

Ron Green, a beloved teacher, inspired generations of students. Denise Gough’s principal said she was the best school nurse he’d ever worked with. Jane Jackson simply told the truth.

Then suddenly, Green and Gough were out of a job, and Jackson was slapped with a harsh formal reprimand. But all three, and thousands more like them, were vindicated with the help of the Association, by using the grievance provision of their collective bargaining contract. It’s a provision that promises a fair process for those accused of wrongdoing.

Read how NEA Helped These Educators

Plus, learn the  grievances lingo.

 

Most educators don’t think they’ll ever need to file a grievance, and most never do. But when it’s needed, the right to due process can be a career-saver.

Grievances are often handled by the Association’s UniServ staff like Virginia’s Anthony Jeffries and Kelly Paine. Most UniServ staff are often former members.

In some states, especially in the South, there’s no collective bargaining, but there usually is a grievance or due process system written into the state law. “When you can’t bargain with the school board, you wind up bargaining with the legislature,” says Carol Davis, former president of the Louisiana Association of Educators. It was a grievance process mandated by law that provided an opening for 70 Baton Rouge special education teachers plagued by computer software that wouldn’t work and ate up valuable teaching time. They filed a grievance and their school board responded. When there is no collectively bargained contract, school boards generally have the final say on grievances, with no effective right of appeal to a neutral arbitrator.

What non-bargaining associations lack in contract guarantees, they can sometimes make up for with grassroots pressure. “If you can stock the board meeting full of teachers and ESPs silently glaring at the board, sometimes you can turn them,” explains Colleen Borst, executive director of the North Carolina Association of Educators (NCAE).

With or without a contract, the formal grievance process is only part of the shield that associations can forge to protect educators. Nasty behavior by a supervisor can be painful enough without necessarily rising to the level of a contract violation or illegal act.

“There’s nothing that says people have to behave well, and frequently they don’t,” observes Claudia Cole Williams, who manages NCAE field and legal services. An effective building rep, especially one backed by a strong building organization, can often solve problems that aren’t covered by the contract.

Even so, there are cases—often hard to anticipate—when it sure helps to have a legally enforceable right to a fair hearing. We’ve gathered stories from around the country that show the range of problems and injustices that NEA members have tackled—and rectified—through grievances. As Gough said, “I knew with an unbiased arbitrator, the truth would come out.”

 

Added 10/16/07 

Here We Go Again

The same group that failed to get enough signatures to put School
Funding for Education (contained tax credit vouchers) on the November
2006 general election ballot has re-filed the initiative petition with
the Secretary of State's Office.  The petition has been certified and
petition gatherers have been sighted. This time the petition is called
Taxation.

Please do not sign this petition. This proposal is quite appealing to
taxpayers as an individual could get a 50% tax credit for a contribution
or donations made to not-for-profit corporations, organizations and
foundations for tax-credit voucher.

Please do not sign this petition.  This proposal would reduce general
revenue by $5 billion annually, leaving less money to fund public
education and other essential social services for Missouri's children.


Chris Guinther

MNEA President
1810 East Elm Street
Jefferson City, MO  65101-4174
573-634-3202
800-392-0236
(Fax) 573-634-5646
 www.mnea.org