SNEA Recommends 2 Board of Education Candidates

  

Recently, a dedicated member-team devoted 8 hours of their weekend to the important work of screening school board candidates We met with all 5 candidates that are running for the 2 available seats. They are;

Charles Taylor

Alina Lehnert

Allen Kunkel

Michelle Gavel

Melissa Penkalski

Per our established process, each candidate had already completed our questionnaire, so these screening interviews gave us the opportunity to go even deeper into issues that are important to our membership. Time was also given to each candidate so they could ask questions of our team.

As we got to know each candidate it was clear that each one brought strengths to this leadership opportunity. This is a strong field of candidates, which bodes well for the continuing health of our school board.

Ultimately, our team decided to recommend support for 2 candidates;

Charles Taylor and Alina Lehnert

In his interview, Charles Taylor stated, “Teachers should be involved in establishing goals; they are closest to the kids.” He is aware of the underlying socio-economic complexities many students bring to their school experience and the impact that may have on their academic and social success.

In response to a question on the distribution of district resources, Charles responded that if the district can allocate resources that benefit teachers and students, then they, in turn, will benefit the district.

For more information on Charles’ campaign, see Charles Taylor for School Board on Facebook.

Throughout her screening, Alina Lehnert identified herself as a maximizer; a leader who can take things that already work and make them better. She advocates for increased collaboration of teachers and believes that everybody matters, so she is determined to listen to everyone.

She stated in her interview, “I see leaders at all levels; nurses, secretaries, cooks...because they all have influence. Leadership must be developed at all levels.”

For more information on Alina’s campaign, see Alina Lehnert, Public Figure on Facebook.

There are many ways you can support these candidates;

• Encourage your colleagues, family and friends to vote for them
• Contribute to their campaigns (see facebook sites)
• Place signs in your yard (SNEA will have signs at our office)
• phone bank

SNEA will keep you informed and up to date on more opportunities for you to be involved.

Most importantly, remember to vote on April 5!

A strong, wise, informed board of education will continue to be our partner as we work everyday to serve our community and our students at Springfield Public Schools.

 

Kittilu Maxson

Springfield NEA President

 

See the link below for the News-Leader article about SNEA's recommendations;

http://www.news-leader.com/story/news/education/2016/03/03/springfield-nea-recommends-two-sps-school-board-candidates/81261600/

SNEA Hosts Q & A With Superintendent, Dr. Jungmann and Chief Learning Officer, Dr. Dawson

The Springfield NEA meeting room was packed with interested educators for the November 19 Question & Answer session with Superintendent, Dr. John Jungmann, and Chief Learning Officer, Dr. Mike Dawson. Also in attendance were district CFO/COO, Carol Embree, and Chief Human Resource Officer, Parker McKenna.

Educators representing some 35-40 buildings were in attendance and many presented questions for district leadership. SNEA president, Kittilu Maxson, led the meeting and presented questions on behalf of those who were unable to attend but had sent questions via email.

The meeting opened with brief statements from Dr. Jungmann, who reiterated his support for SPS teachers, crediting his family and caring teachers for having helped guide his path to the position he now holds. Dr. Dawson, who mentioned that he had been an NEA building representative while teaching in California, recognized that he had once been in the same position as the educators in attendance, and he appreciated their work.

For an hour, Dr. Jungmann and Dr. Dawson fielded an assortment of questions that ranged from student attendance policy to district finances. Here are some highlights:

Attendance Policy – A school counselor asked why SPS was one of the few districts in the region that did not have a student attendance policy. Both district leaders spoke to this issue, stating that approximately 88% of the students had 90% attendance or better, and that moving that 12% to have better attendance was the key. Dr. Jungmann noted that establishing consequences for poor attendance didn’t seem to have the desired effect, so the district should look at creating paths, options and programs for student engagement.

Student Behaviors and Alternative Programs – An elementary related arts teacher expressed concerns that many teachers shared regarding escalating student behavior issues. Should the district expand EBS programs or functional skills classrooms? Why did the district cut these programs? Dr. Jungmann noted that neither he nor Dr. Dawson were in the district when those decisions were made, but he did explain that the district is talking with a local mental health provider and that the director of special services is looking at possible options.

Technology – An elementary teacher from a building that has yet to implement iGNITE expressed frustration that her building (600 students) shares 30 PCs on a cart, while unopened new Netbooks sat unused because the IT department apparently has no HP-Certified technicians. Dr. Jungmann explained that the district needed to proceed with “intelligent buying” of Chromebooks rather than purchase devices that are more costly and less efficient to operate (like Netbooks). Dr. Dawson pointed out that as schools are deployed, these issues will be solved in real time. A related question, from a “year one” iGNITE high school teacher, was about inconsistent access to wifi “hot spots” in the building. Dr. Jungmann explained that the Board of Education will be discussing this in December and that these issues need to be fixed.

Summer School – It was pointed out by a summer school teacher that many teachers were reluctant to return for a second year due to the lack of any break or conference times during a long school day. Dr. Jungmann agreed that expanding summer school in such a rapid manner did create some issues that had to be addressed on the fly, and that the district will be looking into adding “specials” to vary the instructional day and provide more flexibility for educators in the schedule.

High School Schedules – A high school counselor raised the issue of inconsistent scheduling at the high schools. This creates a problem for transfer students who may have to delay their graduation due to scheduling conflicts for required classes. It was noted – from the floor – that the district spent a great deal of time addressing this issue a few years ago, and no changes were made. Dr. Dawson stated that 157 students were potentially affected by this issue due to transfers, and Dr. Jungmann explained that there was no current plan to issue an administrative order to change to one schedule plan or the other. After full deployment of iGNITE, the district will take another look at this issue.

Fremont, a Model iGNITE School – Teachers at Fremont were told near the end of last school year that they will be asked to reapply for their teaching positions at Fremont for the 2016-17 school year. This news came as a blow to some teachers who had invested their professional energy into building relationships in this school community. Dr. Jungmann explained that if Fremont “is to be what we hope it to be”, the district needs to be assured that the right people are there. He mentioned that teachers often move to different buildings in order to have the opportunity to grow in a different spot.

Veteran Teachers and Teacher Morale – There were two or three questions related to this topic. Dr. Jungmann recognized the importance of retaining experienced teachers in order to provide consistency and continuity. In response to a query about the sometimes overwhelming pace of change and how it affects teachers, Dr. Jungmann responded that the first year was a fast start to a new initiative and that district leadership will now be a position to offer more support as the shift is made. It was mentioned from the floor that building principals do not always “get it right”, or mix in their own personal ambitions, when implementing directives and new initiatives from district leadership.

District Budget – A teacher asked how the district was paying for all the new technology, building purchases and remodeling. Dr. Jungmann answered that some of the tech purchases came from the existing Bond Fund and the rest will come from the General Fund. Smarter purchasing has made it possible to purchase more devices (Chromebooks) for less than other devices would have cost. The state funding formula, though still under-funded, has increased the last couple of years, and the expansion of summer school has also generated increases in revenue from the state.

This was a lot to pack into one hour of discussion, and we’ve left a few things out. From an SNEA perspective, it was great to see so many dedicated teachers assemble on their own time to discuss and bring forward issues for district leadership to discuss. Typically, presentation of discussion items tend to move in the opposite direction, from administrator to teacher. For this opportunity, SNEA is grateful to Dr. Jungmann and Dr. Dawson for their professionalism and for their willingness to field questions in a wide open forum with SPS educators.

The discussion that followed the departure of Dr. Jungmann and Dr. Dawson was mixed. While the meeting was professional, cordial and provided some meaningful insights into how the administration views our district and the work of its teachers, many in attendance felt that specific answers to questions were somewhat elusive. Perhaps it was the constraints of time that limited the expansion of responses regarding some of the issues raised.

From an SNEA perspective, the sight of a crowded room of teachers attending a meeting on their own time was a thing of beauty. A sincere thank you to all who attended and contributed. We hope to sponsor similar events in the future and are always open to ideas from our members.

On a related note, SNEA will soon be entering into negotiations with the district regarding the 2016-17 contract for teachers, counselors and librarians. The bargaining team will be holding preliminary planning meetings in coming weeks. Be reminded that virtually every proposal SNEA makes at the bargaining table comes from educators like you, so please keep the lines of communication open.

The next SNEA meeting – December 10 – will be held from 4-5:45 at Big Whiskey’s on Battlefield. This will be our SNEA/Holiday Happy Hour with beginning appetizers provided and Happy Hour drinks on your own. Please drop in and celebrate with your SNEA friends.

 

Kittilu Maxson, SNEA- in collaboration with Ray Smith, MNEA

 

An Interesting Model of Tech Integration & Instructional Coaching at a PA High School

Take a look at this  YouTube video from Edutopia.

https://youtu.be/4l5JBUacW1w

There were 2 intriguing take-aways for me.

1. The HS Principal stated that the instructional coach works "off the bell" and has no mandated time to meet with teachers. He is available when they need him.

2. The Instructional Coach models his work by stating that the idea comes before the technology. Educators should begin with the instructional goals and competencies the students need to explore and then choose the technology component that will best enhance those goals.

Please post your comments.

  Springfield NEA Recommends School Board Candidates

Springfield NEA’s school board committee, composed of volunteer SNEA members, recently completed an extensive interview process for school board candidates and has issued the following three recommendations for the April 7 election (in alphabetical order):


Jill Patterson
Francine Pratt
Bruce Renner



Jill Patterson

Springfield educators are quite familiar with Jill Patterson as the face and voice on mandated reported training videos over the years. Her considerable experience working on behalf of abused and neglected children in our community was a strong factor in her decision to run for the school board and in SNEA’s recommendation. Patterson served as a prosecuting attorney with Greene County for 15 years. She has served on numerous boards relating to education and child advocacy. Governor Nixon appointed Patterson to the Child Abuse and Neglect Review Board in 2013. She has worked as a debate coach and has volunteered for numerous school-related activities, including PTA and Early Childhood tutoring. Ms. Patterson is the only candidate with children who currently attend Springfield Public Schools. SNEA believes she will make an outstanding school board member.


Francine Pratt

Francine Pratt is currently the Executive Director for Multicultural Programs at Missouri State University and was formerly Program Coordinator for Drury University’s Scholars Program as well as Executive Director for Isabel’s House, the Crisis Nursery of the Ozarks. Pratt also has served on the advisory committee for OTC Middle School program as part of a long list of civic activities and leadership. Ms. Pratt worked as a mentor in all five Springfield high schools to develop college preparedness for diverse students and is quite familiar with Springfield schools, having worked with many teachers, counselors, school nurses and principals. Pratt’s extensive civic activism leaves her uniquely qualified to serve on the school board.


Bruce Renner

Nobody knows the Springfield school district better than Bruce Renner, who has served for 21 years on the board of education. Renner has seen five superintendents come and go over the span of his volunteer work on the school board, and he has never lost his passion for making Springfield Schools a better place to teach and learn. SNEA knows firsthand through years of experience working with Renner that there is no stronger advocate for public education, teachers and students. He is considered the board’s in-house archivist, and he’s particularly adverse to watching the district repeat mistakes it has made in the past – nor is he adverse to speaking up about it. Renner graduated from Parkview High School and worked as a teacher and counselor at Central and Parkview before becoming Director of Admissions and Dean of Student Services at OTC. He currently teaches part-time at OTC. Some board members may become complacent with longevity, but such is not the case with Renner. SNEA heartily recommends another term for this dedicated educator.


Other Candidates


Patricia Ann Ingold

Patricia Ingold is making her first run for public office after being asked to run by friends in the community. She has taught in private and public schools in Virginia, California and Missouri and offers strong support for teachers. She currently works as a property manager. Ingold expressed concerns about the public schools asking parents and families to abandon their values. She also expressed concerns about top down social engineering by the government through public schools.


Swayne Loftis

Swayne Loftis chose not to participate in the SNEA interview process, but he did submit a partial questionnaire. Loftis was in the news last year, when he attempted to be on the school board ballot but did not submit enough valid signatures. At that time, he raised serious questions about the integrity of the process and those who counted the signatures. This year, Loftis is on the ballot. He describes himself as a conservative contractor working on contract with the US Forest Service and Missouri Department of Conservation. Loftis says that, as a board member, he would never tolerate any curriculum, teacher, or administrator to pressure or bully a child to sin against Almighty God in any way.

How Can You Help a Fellow Member?

 

Dear SNEA members,

I am writing to you to ask for your help for a fellow MNEA member and a friend of mine.

My friend, Lori Zanitsch from Special School District, is in need of raising S25, 000 for a service animal- a DAD?

 

What is a DAD you ask?

A Diabetic Alert Dog (DAD) is trained to alert their handlers when the sugar is 80 and below or 180 and above. The dogs start training when they are 7-8 weeks old. The DAD will alert me or do "go tells". This is when the diabetic does not check their sugar or ignores the DAD; the Diabetic Alert Dog will go and find someone else to tell that the diabetic is not testing. The DADs will go and retrieve the meter bag, juice box, or other needed item. The DADs will go with the diabetic to any public place (if the public is allow by federal law so are Service Dogs). This includes work and school. If for some reason the diabetic has to be admitted into the hospital the DADs are able to stay by their side and alerting to sugar lows and highs.

Why does Lori need a DAD? Doesn’t she have a service animal?

Yes, Lori has a cat-Cosmo. He has been her service animal for many years. In October she felt a lump on Cosmo.  After surgery was performed and a biopsy completed it was determined that he had Feline Vaccine Associated Sarcoma.  The vaccines he was given during the summer had created the cancer.  1% of all cats vaccinated get this type of cancer.  This type of cancer does not respond well to typical cancer treatments so now he is going to have his leg amputated.  This is not a decision that Lori wanted to make but Cosmo has saved her life so many times it is now time to save his. Therefore she must replace him as her service animal.

 

How can I help?

Contact Melissa Albright at 417-343-2120, email melissamalbright@hotmail.com or stop by the SNEA office purchase to raffle tickets for a 32 inch color TV. Tickets are:  1 ticket for $5 or 5 tickets for $20.

The drawing is Jan. 31.

Please act now. I would love for an SNEA member to win! But better yet, you will be helping a fellow member.

 

If you would prefer to donate and receive a tax deduction go to the following site and donate:

http://sdwr.donordrive.com/campaign/cosmic

The best part about being an MNEA member is that we are family and family helps family. I hope I can count on you to help fellow member and friend Lori Zanitsch.

Springfield NEA is Proud of the Accomplishments of Our Highly Qualified, Educator-Members

Please click on the links below to read about 2 of our colleagues who have achieved National Board Certification and continue to grow as recognized leaders in their disciplines. Congratulations to Dr. Melissa Albright, who also serves locally on our Executive Board and to Lisa Lilley.



http://www.springfieldpublicschoolsmo.org/pages/SPSMO/News/SPS_educator_elected_to_nation

http://www.springfieldpublicschoolsmo.org/pages/SPSMO/News/MYP_coordinator_elected_to_boa

 A Word of Encouragement

To coincide with the most recent, education-profession-bashing, article in Time Magazine, I think it is important to send a clear message to all of you who have committed your lives and careers to positively impact the lives of your students on a daily basis.

It is too often a thankless task. I know that a majority of our members are elementary teachers and they are setting aside each afternoon this week and one really long evening, to meet with the parents of each of their students. Those conversations will be unique; pointing out the learning styles, strengths and challenges of every student. Each conference will be a living example of the 'Learning is Personal' vision our district strives to achieve.

Do you get the impression I could go on and on?

Thanks to the debate coaches, whose students engage in relevant, critical thinking at every turn.

Kudos to the vocal, instrumental and visual arts teachers who consistently provide opportunities for their students to engage in 'the arts' as a daily way of looking at and understanding the world around them.

A shout out goes to science teachers who use current events and ongoing projects like the Nautilus, deep-sea exploration to inspire their students to ask questions and to test theories.

Much gratitude goes to athletic coaches, of all sports, who foster a healthy understanding in their athletes about what it really means to participate as a team member and to work together toward a common goal.

Each of us knows that many of our students wouldn't come to school at all if these opportunities weren't available to them. It is the dedication and expertise of our educators that keeps many students involved in school each day.

Please know that it would have been easy to keep on writing; listing the amazing ways that counselors, nurses, librarians and all of you meet the needs of the students in our community.

Thank you!

Kittilu Maxson

Springfield NEA President

 Springfield School Board Update

Study Session, 10.7.2014

 

 

Highlights:

 

* Parker McKenna made a recommendation for the board to renew the District's contract with Mercy as the Preferred Provider. The new 5-year contract will save the District approximately $4 million dollars, according to a re-pricing analysis of last year's claims. The board will vote on the recommendation at it's next regular meeting, Oct. 21, 2014.

 

* The board is considering a 3rd party contract to cover Crossing Guard responsibilities. There was much discussion about partnering with both the city and county, but the total cost to the district could be as much as $67,000 if those groups do not contribute toward the costs of keeping our children safe.

 

* Dr. Jungmann presented a draft of the district's 2015 Legislative Agenda, to be voted on at the next meeting. The document stresses legislative support of local control, revenue increases, the positive correlation between strong public schools and our community's healthy economic development, a commitment to fully funding the formula and an expectation that local legislators will use the Missouri Public Education Vision Project to direct their work for our children.

 

* Board President, Dr. Denise Fredrick presented to the Chamber's Good Morning, Springfield about the importance of defeating Amendment 3. She also volunteered with other local educators at the Protect Our Local Schools phone bank to call voters across the state to ask them to join us in voting against this harmful amendment.

 

* All board members agreed that more focused, one-on-one advocacy needs to take place between each of them and our local legislators. They expressed frustration that many candidates run on an 'education' platform and then can't be found when it's time to vote in support of our local education issues. There may be a reception for local legislators before the Dec. 9th board meeting.

 

One of my favorite moments of the meeting, which lasted until after 8:00 p.m., was when Dr. Jungmann referred to ,"Creativity and our other C's...", as he shared out experiences from his Listening/Learning Tour. Many of us have  thought that Creativity should be the first of the 4 C's and it was inspiring to hear the word used so naturally by the vision-maker of our district!

 

Submitted by Kittilu Maxson

SNEA President

Will You Accept the Challenge?

 

Springfield NEA President, Kittilu Maxson is joining with SPS -School Board President, Dr. Denise Fredrick in issuing a phone bank challenge!

 

WHEN- Monday, September 29, from 3-7 pm

               and Tuesday, September 30, from 3-7 pm

WHERE- Protect Our Local Schools, Southwest Regional Office

                  519 Walnut in downtown Springfield

 

Join us in a friendly competition to make as many phone calls as we can, while we work to defeat Amendment 3. Sign in as a 'friend' of SNEA or 'friend' of the School Board and we'll post the results here!

 

You will be working to support our Local Schools when you give even 30 minutes of your time toward this effort.

 

Hope to see you there!

 



Remarks to the Springfield School Board

Sept. 2, 2014/Study Session

Kittilu Maxson, SNEA president

 

When you ask any educator if they consider their profession to be a business or an art, they would lean heavily toward it being an art, but each educator also willingly understands the need for accountability as they provide an undeniably important service to their community through their work with students each day.

You’re all familiar with the non-profit, “TeachGreat”. I would be remiss if I didn’t take this opportunity to point out that “TeachGreat” is grammatically incorrect. The correct phrase would be; "TeachWell". I don’t teach great, I teach well!  Putting all politics aside, you’ve asked me to bring you the teacher perspective. Thank you for this opportunity.

Let’s start by looking at our very own Springfield Learning Model. It’s processes include the familiar 3 C’s; Critical Thinking, Communication and Collaboration. Should Amendment 3 pass, teachers could see a much different emphasis in these areas. With so much riding on one-size-fits-all, state mandated testing, the results of which become the quantifiable student performance data to be used as the majority of each educator’s professional evaluation, our new 3 C’s might sound something like this;

                    *Careful Test-Taking, instead of Critical Thinking

                    *Communicating Quantifiable Data

                    *Competition, rather than Collaboration

Let’s look at that last one, Competition. Our district currently fosters and supports a culture of team collaboration at all levels. Amendment 3 could cause a subtle, yet negative shift toward professional isolation and competition among colleagues. Both are antithetical to the professional development of educators and are not in the best interests of our students… who come to us each year with a wide variety of strengths and needs. PD would need to focus on teaching to the tests. Teachers believe that what our district is focusing on now, the growth and progress of our student over time, is so much more relevant and accurate than any single, status shot derived from a one-size-fits-all, high stakes testing event.

As a climate of harmful competitiveness grows, the very same educators, who now choose to follow their hearts into careers where they advocate for the students with the most challenges to overcome, like in many of our Title and Focus schools, would be faced with the reality of their very jobs being on the line if their student’s scores didn’t meet a certain state-determined level.magine the scenario that could quickly emerge; students with potentially the most to lose, would no longer have the advantages of ever being guided and taught by our most experienced educators. What teachers would be willing to continue to take that risk?

I wonder if you’ve thought about the extra burden that will be placed on administrators and counselors if this amendment becomes law.As they create class lists and schedules, they will now not only be trying to match student’s needs with teacher’s strengths, but also be deciding the make-up of the group by which their colleagues will be evaluated and compensated. What a strain this will put on the professional and collegial relationships of educators at each site, but also on the student-teacher relationship.

Beyond the shift to Careful Test-Taking and Competition, it seems our mission statement could change from “Learning Is Personal”, to something more like “Learning Is Quantifiable”. Understand, educators want to show the effects of their art and professionalism through an effective evaluation system. Teachers don’t shy away from this process.Our district is currently implementing a new educator evaluation system which relies on highly trained administrators, collaborating with educators to use multiple measures, over time, in order to rate educator effectiveness. This evaluation process, when paired with our negotiated, binding contract and existing board policy, allows the district to have both the input and control it needs to ensure a quality educational environment for each student.

I  never thought I’d be so pleased to have the Springfield Learning Model to rely on as a structure, but as we move forward together in transparency and accountability, we must think critically about how we communicate this important issue and continue to foster collaborative, person-centered relationships which, together,  benefit our students, educators and our whole community. 

Teachers aren’t interested in having a constitutional amendment insert itself into our district’s continually improving processes.

Teachers and students are more than a test score.

Teachers understand there will be high costs of implementation, draining funding away from what they know their classrooms actually need.

Teachers don’t believe their students deserve this extra testing burden.

Teachers value working in a district that has high levels of local control.

This is a teacher’s perspective.

Thank-you.

 

 

 

 
 

SNEA: Looking Back, Moving Forward

 

As SNEA President, I’d like to sincerely thank all of our hard-working members for supporting the work of our association in bringing positive changes to the working and learning environment that we share each day with our students.

Your Dues Dollars At Work!

It’s important to recognize that your dues dollars are actually put to work on a daily basis advocating for members, meeting with administration on behalf of teachers individually and collectively. SNEA doesn’t seek the limelight in promoting positive change for teachers and students. We seek results. Sometimes the results are intangible, like building strong working relationships with administrators and school board members – but it’s the relationship with our members that is the utmost priority.

Please view the following bulleted items that briefly outline a few of the contract provisions that SNEA has negotiated with the district since 2010, when the collective bargaining process began.

You might ask yourself this question:

"How many of these items would have been brought forward unilaterally by the administration and school board? Would they have even known they were issues that were important to teachers?

Our point? The process works, and it works because of your support and participation. And there is much more work to be done . . . with your support.

* SNEA members campaigned and voted (2009-2010) for a more focused process to bring teachers and administrators to the table to negotiate positive change. Some of you may remember the transition didn’t always go smoothly. Dr. Ridder, in his final report to the BOE (June 2014), said this about the process: "I really feel that we as a district have done a very good job with collective bargaining. I’ve been in different scenarios . . . and I feel that the journey has been good. Collective bargaining is all about empowering the teacher, and I think – through collective bargaining – we have come up with a strategic focus of supporting teachers. And I think this has been a very powerful thing."

* Since 2010, SNEA has negotiated binding contracts for teachers, counselors, librarians, school nurses, clerical employees.

* SNEA negotiated two consecutive years of "double" steps on the salary schedule for teachers, whose steps had been frozen in 2009 and 2010. This amounted to consecutive 5% increases for the majority of SPS teachers. Step freezes had never been restored in SPS history prior to 2013.
* Work day provision that more clearly defined the length of a teacher work day

* Duty Free Lunch for teachers as part of the overall binding contract

* Teacher Compensation for Supervising Student Teachers

* Staff Meetings – duration and frequency isn’t set in stone, but they must be "reasonable". SNEA has enforced this provision several times since it was adopted in 2011.

* Grades – The integrity of the grading process is important to teachers. If an administrator wishes to change a grade, they own it.

* Mileage Reimbursements for traveling teachers

* Additional Load Compensation for teachers who are asked to cover a class during plan time

* Administrative Assistance with Student Behaviors & Discipline

* Grievance Procedure for contract violations – SNEA negotiated the contract, SNEA enforces the contract on your behalf.

* Sick Leave – front loaded 4 Sick Leave days to the beginning of each school year to help new teachers and those who had endured serious illness the previous year.

* Increased payment for accrued sick leave upon retirement or resignation

* Eliminated permission forms and unreasonable advance notice for Personal Leave

* Stipend increases

* Lateral Movement for Advanced Degrees

* Expanded window for internal transfers from March to the end of June

* All provisions of the agreement (contract) are binding and prevail if in conflict with board policy

*  Any changes to the agreement must be agreed to by both SNEA and the district.

SNEA member, you are the driving force behind future changes to our contract.

Get involved, communicate with your colleagues.

Let your association work in partnership with you to continue to make Springfield schools a better place to teach and learn!

You Can Make A Difference!

 

Join Springfield NEA- Work to Defeat Amendment 3!





Go to the link below to see how you can get involved; along with your neighbors, families and friends.

 

                                   http://www.protectourlocalschools.com/

 

 

Together- We Can Make The Difference!

 



Local Leaders,

Don't let a constitutional amendment take a one-size-fits-all approach for Missouri's students!

We need your help as a local leader of SNEA to defeat Amendment 3.

 

 Please get involved....we only have 2 1/2 months to educate and encourage our colleagues, friends and families to VOTE NO on Amendment 3.

Click below for more information.

http://www.mnea.org/Missouri/News/Dont-let-a-constitutional-amendment-take-a-onesize-477.aspx-- 

SNEA is working closely with the Protect Our Local Schools campaign to organize a grass-roots effort to educate and energize our community about this harmful amendment. There is a place for YOU in this work!

Please share and help us get the word out!!

SNEA Leadership Welcomes You Back!



It doesn't take long for the sounds, sights and feelings of summer to fade and be replaced by students' questions, parents' e-mails, principals' requests and colleagues' ideas.

 

You have prepared your working space, whether it is the main office, gym, classroom or library. That space is also where your students are engaged and discover more about themselves and their world. I want to thank you for all the time you have already put into orchestrating the best space possible for them and for yourselves.

 

The photo above was taken after SNEA hosted a New Teacher Lunch for all the new hires in SPS. Most of your executive board came to meet and greet the new teachers and to share their personal stories of what membership in SNEA has meant to them.

 

As I look forward to the 2014-2015 school year, I know that there will be legislative issues we'll need to understand in order to fight together against them. There will be questions you have about how to best implement the policies and procedures of our district. We'll partner together to utilize the best professional practices to meet all of our students' needs. You'll make suggestions that our bargaining team can bring to the negotiating table. We'll have meetings that help determine a positive level of professional support as we each work to improve our teaching skills.

 

Most of all, as I look ahead into this school year that has now arrived, I see the wealth that SPS has in their best asset; you. Thank you for coming to work each day, greeting your students with energy and developing trusting, sharing relationships with your colleagues. I truly believe that it is you and the students you teach, who make this the best place to work in the whole state of Missouri.

 

Kittilu Maxson

4th grade teacher/on leave

SNEA president

snea@aol.com

417.848.6487 



SNEA President's Remarks to the School Board About Anti-Teacher Tenure Ballot Initiative

Late last week, I got a phone call from Superintendent Dr. Norm Ridder, inviting me to speak to the school board during the legislative issues portion of the regular session. He stressed that the school board had requested information about the ballot initiative process and also what the language of this particular ballot would mean for our district, should it get on the ballot in November.

I read several articles, including an excellent one from The Progressive, by Brendan Fischer and Lisa Graves, which gave me a clear picture of what is happening behind the scenes through this initiative process in Missouri. Mark Jones, MNEA Political Director, clearly laid out the timeline for this initiative to actually get on the ballot and the process for signature validation.

I invite you to read on to get a glimpse of what one St. Louis billionaire believes he can do to take away local control from school districts across the state. This ballot initiative will negatively effect our profession, our students, our schools and communities. SNEA will keep you posted on what you can do to keep this initiative  from becoming  a neatly purchased amendment to our state constitution.

 

 

******************************************************************* 

Remarks to the SPS School Board

April 29, 2014

By Kittilu Maxson, SNEA president

 

Ballot Initiative/Petition Process

What is it?

Many of you have run into people gathering signatures for petitions. Maybe it’s out in front of your library or driver’s license office. If you’re like me, you begin by asking clarifying questions…like, “Do you live here?” “Are you registered to vote in Greene County?” “Do you get paid?”  “By whom?”

The ballot initiative process is an avenue for citizens to bring an issue that is important to them before the people for a vote. The process is intended to be a grassroots movement, motivated by intense support for an issue. Make No Mistake-This is NO Grass Roots Movement!!!

Who is paying for it?

Rex Sinquefield, a St. Louis billionaire, also the state’s biggest political contributor, is funding the ‘teachgreat’ initiative to get this measure on the ballot in November. This billionaire’s priorities are to financially support legislation that will lower his own taxes and to privatize public education. Each person working on this ballot initiative campaign is being paid to do so. They are not motivated by personal ideals or issues.

Here, I’d like to point out that none of the public education stakeholders that we often look to are asking for these changes.

NOT the

* Missouri School Board Association

* Missouri Association of School Administrators

* PTA

* Teacher’s Associations

 

What IS in the ballot initiative language?

In a nutshell, it strips local control over educator evaluations and the teacher tenure process. The language implements a top-down, one-size-fits-all, standardized testing event for every child, in every district across the state.

We already know what’s working in Springfield…

SPS is developing and in the process of implementing an Educator Evaluation Plan, based on a framework recommended by DESE. It is highly collaborative, transparent and holds all parties in the process accountable. SPS has processes in place to recruit and retain highly qualified educators. When there are concerns about a teachers’ competence or performance, there are steps taken to support their improvement and if that doesn’t happen there is a path to let them go.

This initiative puts a huge emphasis on the status of our students from a one-time, high stakes test event, rather than on student growth through multiple measures and formative data, over time.

It would be a HUGE step backward for SPS!

Where are we in the ballot initiative process?

They need to gather between 147,000-160,000 signatures. Right now, the Coalition for Missouri’s Future believes they will get enough signatures

On May 4^th they will be submitted to the office of the Secretary of State for validation. If approved, the issue will go on the November ballot.

There may be legal challenges along the way, especially on the lack of clarity of the ballot language as it would appear for voters, specifically the non-disclosure of the financial burden it would place on local districts

SUMMARY:

This ballot initiative pits the support of public education through local control against political opportunism. It is an outside party, taking away local control and at the same time implementing one-size fits all processes which teachers do not believe are best practices for their own professional evaluation, nor for the effective assessment of their student’s growth, progress and achievement.

 

Kittilu Maxson, SNEA president

April is early enrollment month- Join NOW- 5 Months Free!!

                                        


TOP 10 DISTINCTIONS

Springfield NEA is the only association


• That was elected by a clear majority of Springfield teachers, counselors, nurses and secretaries to be the exclusive representative of the entire bargaining unit

• That is recognized as the exclusive representative by the Springfield R-12 Board of Education

• That meets annually with district leadership to bargain compensation and working conditions for the entire bargaining unit

• Most recently bargaining a 2-step salary increase for most teachers, librarians and counselors, new contract language guaranteeing duty free lunch and including administrative support for teachers when faced with student discipline issues

• With a binding contract that allows the SNEA president to meet with members during their conference time

• That does NOT use member dues for Political Action Committees. All PAC member donations are voluntary and are used to help elect recommended school  board candidates

• That is entirely governed by elected members of the association

• That connects a network of representatives -in virtually every building- and meets monthly to discuss district practices, policies, contracts and other relevant information

• With a full-time president, UniServ Director and secretary working out of an independent office to serve the individual members’ needs

• That offers immediate, in-person, legal assistance to members when they are  ‘hotlined’ and that offers all members $4 million in liability insurance

             Sometimes you get what you pay for!

No wonder SNEA sets the standards by which all are measured!

Call 417.869.5090 to request a membership form or ask your building representative for details.

Kittilu Maxson, SNEA president spoke to the Board of Education regarding teacher representation. 3.4.2014

Comments to the BOE/March 4, 2014

Good evening, Members of the Board, Dr. Ridder, Members of the Cabinet.

I’m Kittilu Maxson, a 4^th grade teacher, on leave from the classroom and now serving as president of Springfield NEA. I am proud to represent the teachers, school nurses and clerical employees of this district.

As you know, as early as Sept. 1^st, 2013, SNEA issued a request to this board to be involved in the interview process for selection of a new superintendent. You may also know that we issued objections to the “blended” process that was presented to us by this board’s leadership. The process was confusing and has proven to be untimely. While I know from speaking with Dr. Jungmann yesterday, that an excellent candidate has been selected, teacher “input”- and representation for that “input”- was determined exclusively by this board’s leadership.

Many of you may remember that when teachers, counselors and librarians elected a representative a few years ago, we used a process that was clearly outlined in policies that this board had approved.

SNEA did not agree with some aspects of the process but we abided by it to the letter and were duly elected to be the exclusive representative through a fair election process-a process that was agreed upon by all parties- including the district’s legal counsel, who played a major role in putting it together.

Many districts across Missouri now use that model in choosing employee representatives.

Recently, the district received some unwanted publicity when a prospective school board candidate contested the validity of the district’s signature-counting process.

The simple truth was that he and another prospective candidate had failed to get enough valid signatures to have their names on the ballot. Those individuals do not join you here tonight to share “input” on school board decisions.

Similarly, in every contested board election, some candidates have failed to get enough votes to serve. Some of those candidates persistently criticized how this board did its job, and they received thousands of votes, but that wasn’t enough to share “input” or to serve with you here tonight.

I would like to respectfully remind the board that it is not this board’s duty to intervene and choose a teacher representative. Teachers have already done that-and if they wish to change their representative, the board policy that many of you voted for clearly explains how that may be done.

Springfield NEA is honored to serve the teachers of this district as their representative in negotiating the best possible agreements with the district regarding compensation, benefits and working conditions.

We honor the process that has led to a better understanding of this district through a respectful dialogue with administration.

We ask that this board honor the representation process that it put in place years ago, so that we may continue to move forward together with mutual respect and understanding.

Thank you.