2009 CCIUEA Election Guidelines

can be downloaded by clicking on this link!

• Social security, driver’s license, employee, and other confidential number.
• Personal financial information.
• Home, cellular, and other personal telephone numbers, and personal e-mail addresses.
• Information about an employee’s medical, psychiatric or psychological history or status, and enrollment in a program designed for employees with disabilities (i.e., workers’ or unemployment compensation).
• An employee’s marital status, the name of an employee’s spouse, or information about an employee’s dependents or beneficiaries.

• Letters of reference or recommendation, and performance ratings or reviews.
• Employment applications of those who are not hired by an agency.
• Workplace support services program information.
• Written criticisms of an employee, and information relating to discipline, demotion, or discharge contained in a personnel file (but not the final action of an agency resulting in demotion or discharge).
• Academic transcripts.
• Examinations given in primary and secondary school, and scoring keys or answers.
• Licensure examinations and other examinations related to an individual’s qualifications.
• Notes and working papers made solely for an employee’s personal use that has no official purpose.
• Any information that relates to or results in either a criminal or noncriminal investigation.

The Right-to-Know Law exempts the following labor relations information from public disclosure:

• Records dealing with strategy or negotiations relating to collective bargaining, labor relations, and labor arbitrations (but not a final executed contract).
• An arbitrator’s opinion, an arbitration exhibit, and a transcript of an arbitration hearing (but not the arbitrator’s final award or order).
• Grievance materials.

The law generally excludes any record for which disclosure would present a risk physical harm or otherwise risk an individual’s personal security. How does the Right-to-Know Law affect PSEA members?

The Right-to-Know Law includes broad disclosure requirements, making some information about individual employees subject to public access. For example, an individual public employee’s salary is “public record,” as well as his or her years of service. Public employers are also required to disclose collective bargaining agreements and individual employment contracts.

Certain individual employee information is protected from disclosure under the Law, including social security numbers, personal telephone numbers, and information about an employee’s family members. Also, many personnel records are exempt from disclosure, including written criticisms, letters of recommendation, and most disciplinary records.

PSEA is currently seeking clarification from the Commonwealth’s Office of Open Records regarding several items of personal information which are not specifically excluded under the Law (i.e., home addresses, dates of birth, and tax information). In particular, we have asked the Open Records Office for an Advisory Opinion regarding the release of employee W-2 forms which have been requested by a taxpayer from districts. PSEA strongly objects to the release of these forms.

Because of the broad sweep of the Right-to-Know Law, PSEA members working in public schools should be aware that many records or documents that are created or used in course of employment may be subject to public disclosure, including e-mail. PSEA recommends that employees use work email only for work-related communication. Employees should make sure that every e-mail is written using only professional language, and that they would be comfortable having any of their work e-mail available for view by a member of the public.

Please contact your PSEA UniServ Representative if you have any questions about the Right-to-Know Law, and its effect on your individual employee information.

Something to make fulfilling Act 48 requirements more manageable

Thanks to PSEA, an effort to require that all instruction for Act 48 requirements be conducted in three-hour increments was reconsidered. In late January, PSEA staff met with key Department of Education personnel regarding the proposed requirement and were able to convince officials that the idea was flawed.

We expressed in detail our concerns about this change and the problems it would create not only for PSEA (including difficulties around scheduling activities of three hours duration and record-keeping problems due to the large number of members we serve), but also problems at the district level in scheduling members to stay beyond the regular school day for extended programs, etc.
We stressed that the goal of all professional development (direct instruction and support services), regardless of length, should be to ensure high quality and to positively impact student learning and achievement. PSEA remains committed to working with PDE to achieve this standard. After listening to our concerns, the Department agreed to withdraw the plan.

The February 2009 edition of Current News in Special Education is now available on PSEA.org.

In this issue:

• Are Your Students Ready for the Big Tests?
• PA Bureau of Assessment and Accountability Discusses
• Testing Accommodations for Students Taking the PSSA
• PaTTAN Paraprofessional Courses Go Live!
• Governor's Proposal for Special Education Funding
• PSEA Invited to Participate in Discussion on Critical
• Shortage of Speech-Language Pathologists
• Community Colleges and the Gates Foundation
• The Cost of Higher Education in Pennsylvania - Another
• Factor for Transition Planning that Parents Must Consider
• Resources
• Alternative Search Engines
• Career Resources

Ohio may drop own graduation test
STRICKLAND PUSHES CHANGING TO ACT
By Denise Smith Amos • damos@enquirer.com • February 17, 2009

More than 11,500 of Ohio's high school seniors last year, or 9 percent, tried to pass the state's 10th-grade graduation test in March after prior attempts.

Three out of four failed again.

Some gave up and dropped out. Some appealed to the state for alternative ways to graduate.

Others tried again in the summer, hoping to graduate late.
Ever since Ohio created its 10th-grade test as a gatekeeper to graduation, it has prevented thousands from graduating.

Now, Gov. Ted Strickland wants to phase it out because he says it's not rigorous enough.

Few Cincinnati-area educators object, even though some fear that a new graduation plan may involve a harder test.

"I'm not sure that ... there's a great love for the (OGT) test," said Vince Rahnfeld, a guidance counselor at Sycamore High. "All of us have seen students who have gone through and done a very good job in school and, for whatever reason, didn't perform well on that test."

Under Strickland's proposal, over the next 10 years, Ohio would ditch the OGT, which costs taxpayers about $65 a student, and phase in a modified ACT, one of two national college entrance exams, at a cost of about $35 to $40 a test.

Stan Heffner, Ohio's associate superintendent for curriculum and assessment, said juniors would likely take a modified ACT, but their diploma will rest on more than that.

"As the governor envisions it, you would have to get some kind of composite score or a cumulative total in order to get your diploma," Heffner said. "This gives students more than one way to show they know their stuff."

Students would also have to pass end-of-course exams created for specific classes, he said. And seniors would have to complete an academic project and a service project to graduate.
Some students are wary.

"I think the ACT would be better because it is making it harder to graduate and that means that kids can't just skate by," said Erica Danielle Allen, an eighth-grader at Pleasant Run Middle school.

"But I am nervous about any test we'd take. It does not matter if it is the OGT or the ACT."

Questions remain: When would the changes occur?

Which courses would have end-of-course exams? What ACT scores, course exams and projects would be good enough to graduate? Would the state pay for more than one test per student?

"Conceptually I'm intrigued by the idea, but there's an awful lot that isn't filled in," Rahnfeld said.

"Governor Strickland is trying to move away from a one-size-fits-all OGT, to at least a combination of things. It's going to give us a wider-range view into a student's ability to go on to college and a career."

The OGT, which tests 10th-grade knowledge, is only a few years old. It was adopted in the 2005-06 school year, and not until the Class of 2007 was passing it mandatory.

Students in prior years could substitute a Ninth Grade Proficiency Test to qualify for a diploma.

The OGT was criticized in some corners because students needed to score less than half the possible points to pass most parts of the test, said Rex Brooking, an assistant principal at Colerain High.

"Everyone today feels we need to hold kids to a higher standard," he said.

Some things about OGT are worth carrying over, educators said.
Dan Hudson, an administrator and former math teacher at Northwest Schools, suggested that students get more than one chance at the ACT. They can take the OGT up to seven times.
The ACT is expected to be more difficult, educators say, and it is based on national standards, not Ohio's.

"Does it actually align to Ohio standards and with what we teach in Ohio? There are some concerns to ensure that any assessment like that is going to be aligned to what we're teaching," said Elizabeth Holtzapple, Cincinnati Public's director of research, evaluation, and test administration.

CPS, she said, did well with the OGT. True, more students failed it than failed the old Ohio proficiency tests but, she said, students took more courses toward graduation because of the OGT.

It's unclear if the ACT will have that effect, she said.

"It does raise the bar, but we also have to be very careful about ... unnecessarily excluding students fromgraduating," she said.
That's why the governor is proposing a four-pronged approach to graduation eligibility, Heffner said.

Even so, "you may go from a fairly pressure-filled situation to an enormously pressure-filled situation for students, teachers and parents," warned Rahnfeld.

Brooking, at Colerain, said high schools may end up with fewer kids passing the ACT. Nevertheless, his school is promoting the test now, to encourage students to prepare for college and a career, he said.

"Even students who are not going to college, we'd like to expose them to the ACT, just in case they change their minds," he said.
Some counselors worry about fairness, noting that wealthier students have advantages.

"Those scores can be influenced by whether you've had a chance to take it before or if you take test prep courses," Rahnfeld said.

Eric Fingerhut, chancellor for Ohio's Board of Regents, disagreed, telling legislators that the ACT would level the playing field for many students and encourage more to apply to colleges.

"Students in wealthier school districts are already expected to take one of the tests used by colleges and universities to assess college readiness," Fingerhut said.

"But in other communities, the time and attention spent on helping students pass the OGT - which is not a college readiness tool - means that they are never encouraged to take the ACT or SAT. With this one policy change, every student in Ohio will be considered potential college material."

The ACT is put out by an independent, not-for-profit organization in Iowa City. Five states, including Kentucky, mandate that high school students take it, but no state uses its scores as a determinant for graduation, a spokesman said.

Member Benefits makes tax time easier for PSEA members
Did you know you can get a discount on help with your taxes this year? Did you know that classroom supplies are still tax deductible? Read more...

Governor's budget proposal includes increased education funding
A closer look at the governor's budget address and how it affects PSEA members. Read more...

Your speech and your job
Attention PSEA members! Make sure you think carefully about what you say in the classroom. Recent court cases have imposed limits on First Amendment protection for what you say during your workday. Read more...

From: Nixon, Patricia [PA] on behalf of Testerman, James [PA]
Sent: Wed 1/14/2009 9:10 AM
To: Grp - Board of Directors
Subject: MUST READ - Act 48 Credit

As you probably know by now, PDE has issued a memo to all School Districts, IUs, and VoTechs regarding a change to the minimum number of hours which can be entered for Act 48 credit. Uploads of less than three hours for Act 48 activities offered after January 31, 2009 will not be permitted. According to PDE, their memo is a "clarification" of their guidelines and is based on "the importance of conducting Act 48 professional development activities that are a minimum of three hours in length to provide sufficient time for meaningful depth and breadth of content."

PSEA is very concerned with this change and we do not agree that this is a clarification of their guidelines, nor do we agree that mandating a minimum of three hours results in meaningful and effective professional development.

The Department's memo does permit the "packaging" of courses of less than three hours into a three hour block, i.e. professional development does not have to consist of three hours at one sitting. It does require that the activities "packaged" together to result in a three hour block must be related.

This will be an administrative nightmare for districts, members, and outside providers to track. The implications for PSEA are significant and will profoundly affect what is offered at the state and region levels.

We contacted PDE immediately when we became aware of this memo. We have had several discussions with the Department and plan to continue our efforts to convince the Department to honor their commitments made in the guidelines issued two years ago.

The purpose of this memo is to let you know that we are fully engaged and meeting with key personnel at the Department. We are also looking to build a coalition of support to advance our concerns.

If you are approached by members or leaders, please assure them that PSEA is aware of their concerns and is diligently working to remedy the situation. We will keep you apprised of our activities in this area and will provide an update at the next Board meeting.

Jim

A quick bit of good news

The ability for teachers to deduct from their federal taxes up to $250 in classroom supplies is extended through the 2009 tax year.

Something to help us retain promising colleagues

In a recent column, Dr. Dorothy Rich, developer of the MegaSkills Teacher Training Programs, speaks to the issue of being able to retain talented young teachers. As we so often argue - and as statistics repeatedly confirm - recruiting teaching talent is only half the battle; keeping young teachers from leaving the often stressful and always challenging classroom while their peers in other professions quickly climb the salary ladder is the more daunting task. Dr. Rich "suggests that new, novice teachers be placed in classes where they can taste success and gain experience before moving to more challenging classroom situations where experienced teaching skills will come in handy." Read more about this issue.

Something to help members deal with difficult situations

PSEA has a new publication to assist members who handle difficult student behaviors. "Dealing with Threats and Violent Behaviors from Students with IEPs: Practical Strategies for your Classroom.," is for members faced with a student exhibiting challenging behaviors. "We understand that when dealing with a difficult situation you need answers quickly," said PSEA Director of Education Services Bernie Miller, author of the booklet.

The guide provides suggestions from a variety of perspectives in the hope that some of the ideas will help move situations in a more positive direction, both for the student and the adult.

"We must abide by state and federal regulations when we face the child and the behaviors they bring into the classroom," said Miller. "Those key regulations are also referenced to save you time."

The guide is available on the PSEA.org.

Something you should know…

Everyone should know by now that anything sent over a school district's e-mail system is subject to review by the employer, but what about the general public? To get the legal facts and PSEA recommendations, please see the "Right to Know" memo on PSEA.org.