Showing posts with label modest proposal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label modest proposal. Show all posts

27 July 2007

To Our Contract Negotiators:


The impasse between the Royal Oak Educational Association and the school district has gone on long enough. One of the most recent splits in more than seventeen months of negotiations centers around the issue of class size.

The ROEA proposes the status quo of smaller class sizes for writing courses, 20 students; the district has proposed increasing class size to 30, ostensibly to save needed funds. I feel it is time I entered the fray to settle the matter.

I propose, with appropriate modesty, that the teachers union counter the district proposal with a new class size limit for all classes of 50 students.

The advantages of my proposal are almost too numerous to mention. First, the district’s temerity in suggesting a mere 50% increase in class size might well garner some savings as it releases young and recently-educated teachers, those with energy and training in the latest methods to motivate students, to more needy districts than Royal Oak. However, my proposal, a 250% increase, will save Royal Oak far more money while simultaneously providing low-cost non-tenured staff to even more districts.

The senior staff who remain, in my proposal, could now be entitled to far richer benefits in terms of salary, health care, and retirement. Let’s call this a “shared benefit” for both the administration and its teachers. This is, of course, not collusion, but collaboration, if only the administration would accept the new counterproposal.

I would be remiss if I did not mention a concern from a colleague who mumbled something about NCLB, meeting state benchmarks, and studies connecting small class size to improved academic success.

But I believe I may dismiss these concerns simply: the district remains in a time of fiscal crisis, and niceties must be sacrificed for the greater good.

As I enter my 21st year teaching and my 15th in Royal Oak, I can only assure readers that I have no conflict of interest, and that by “greater good” I do not refer to my “shared benefit.” Toss me accolades and wreaths as my proposal brings the stagnant negotiations to a satisfying conclusion, but I, too, am interested in seeing a valued, salable, and even profitable district.

I end assured that readers will call the district immediately to support a more provocative class size increase than the modest one proposed by administration, and I close convinced that we may bring the contract talks to a swift end.