Make your own free website on Tripod.com
Mann for School Board     |     home
7-8-04 MPS press release re 608 teacher layoffs, realignment   |   MPS 2004-2005 Budget   |   Minneapolis Public Schools 2004-2005 budget highlights   |   Layoff notices to 600 teachers excessive, illegal   |   Teachers bumping   |   200 MPS teachers illegally reassigned   |   Teacher reassignments & excessive layoffs   |   Number of Teacher Positions since 2001-2002   |   Excessive layoffs contribute to high teacher turnover

Teachers bumping
Write-in "Doug Mann" for School Board
Another Option for Minneapolis School Board Voters (2004 General Election)
by Doug Mann, 29 Oct 2004, Submitted to the Star-Tribune for publication 28 Oct 2004

Subj:      Re: [Mpls] teachers bumping
Date:     7/2/2004 9:33:30 PM Central Daylight Time
From:     Socialist2001@cs.com (Doug Mann)
Sender:     mpls-bounces@mnforum.org
To:     mpls@mnforum.org

In a message dated 7/1/2004 2:34:59 PM Central Daylight Time, Dan McGuire writes:

<< When a school is closed the teachers at that school are "excessed," which means that they have the right to bid on an available opening in their licensed area and in a program that fits their professional plan and experience.  They don't get to bump into anyplace they might choose.  If the district has too many excessed teachers, layoffs occur according to seniority, creating available positions, which excessed teachers can then bid on. >>

In other words, high seniority teachers do have the right to bump lower seniority teachers out of their jobs in other schools, at least in the case of school closings that produce an excess of excessed teachers districtwide. That
sounds about right, but that is not the situation that we face going into the next school year.

Excessing and laying off teachers on a districtwide basis, along the lines described above will be highly disruptive in any event, but in the absence of school closings that result in an excess of excessed teachers, excessing and
laying off teachers on a districtwide basis will not produce a substantially different effect, in terms of who does or doesn't get laid off, than the procedure the district is supposed to followed when there is not an excess of excessed
teachers districtwide, as described below.

A teacher is "excessed" when a position is eliminated at a school, and if there is more than one such position at that particular school, the teacher with the lowest seniority is excessed. For example, if one of 3 first grade teacher positions is excessed due to falling student enrollment, the teacher with the lowest seniority is excessed.

The district plans to eliminate 213.8 regular classroom positions from this year to the next. I expect no fewer than 50 to 100 classroom teachers (out of about 1,300) will retire or quit in any event. The vacated positions that have not been eliminated should be filled by "excessed" teachers with the proper qualifications in order of seniority. If the district has an excess of excessed teachers, the excessed teachers who do not move into the vacated positions get
laid off.

If you deal with the elimination of teacher positions by excessing and laying off teachers on a districtwide basis by seniority, you are bumping a lot of teachers out of positions who are not going to get laid off. The lower seniority teachers who don't get laid will get bumped out of their jobs and into jobs that the higher seniority teachers don't want.

How are the layoffs going to be done? In my opinion, it would be better to follow normal excessing procedures rather than the excessing and laying off teachers on a district wide basis. Where do the board members, announced board
candidates (especially the DFL endorsed candidates), and teachers union leadership stand on this issue?

-Doug Mann, King Field
Mann for school board web site:
www.educationright.com