Posted on: Friday, October 22, 2004
ISLAND VOICES
|
By Salome Sato
Well, I just don't know what to make of our employer, the Department of Education. It appears the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, and perhaps there is no consensus between them regarding how to fairly treat their valuable substitutes teachers. Have they hired the UH Board of Regents to assist them in the decision-making process?
This is not the first time they have flip-flopped — like our politicians — on our pay issue. When I began my second career as a substitute teacher nine years ago, I was told that my per diem pay was based on my education level. At the time, there were three tiers: Level I, for people without a college degree; Level II, for those of us with a B.A.; and Level III, for those who held a master's degree or were retired teachers.
The only requirement was to take a 12-hour "substitute course," which costs about $24. This course stressed "that although subs were being hired to replace teachers, the most important aspect was classroom management."
Believe me, nine years of substitute teaching does provide an on-the-job education in classroom management, or you just don't survive.
For substitutes at the middle and high school level, discipline is the biggest problem we face in the classroom. Some subs have been known to quit fighting a losing battle and let the students get away with running the classroom. If you try to reason with them, they will argue and whine and cause more disruption.
Most times, they don't carry any paper and pencils and ask to borrow some; so I carry pencils and ask them for a "deposit," otherwise I may never get them back.
Of course, there are good students who want to learn, but when the rowdy ones take over, even those good students tend to follow the lead by excessive talking. Getting their respect so they will listen is a challenge each and every day.
There's no question, substitutes earn their pay.
Two years ago, the DOE changed its policy. All subs were given the same pay. Don't most companies and organizations compensate their employees based on experience and qualifications?
When the teachers won their pay raises in 2002, the DOE announced a pay raise for the subs, bringing the total to $133.73 per diem. But the very next day, it was "corrected" to $112.92. Did the DOE change the classification and wording on employment forms to circumvent HRS 302A-624(e) governing our pay?
In addition, my 2004-05 Notification of Employment (SF5A-1) clearly states that "the per diem rate of a substitute teacher is $119.80 effective 7/1/04 — 6/30/05." How does the DOE expect us to instill within our children the standards of credibility, responsibility, reliability and the value of education when the DOE reneges on its own policy and treats substitutes unfairly?
Today, the DOE is "adjusting our salaries" again, to comply with the law that it didn't follow in 1996. Isn't it ironic that my employer now wants me to meet its new mantra of "Setting Standards" by requiring a 30-hour course for $100 (no other course offered by the Adult Education program charges that amount of money), having a college degree and then decreasing my salary? Am I missing something here?
Maybe my fellow substitute teachers wouldn't feel so outraged if our employer would pay us according to the same value it places on their teachers.
Now I hear the DOE now wants the Legislature to give them "control" over our pay scale. By their recent actions, aren't they manipulating and controlling our wages now?
Therefore, I must conclude that my employer is unwilling to fairly compensate and treat its "valuable subs," as stated by Superintendent Patricia Hama-moto. Or are we being used as pawns at the negotiating table, which may then force us to organize to exert our power?
Perhaps some of these decision — or indecision — makers would be interested in the job at the equivalent rate of less than $9 per hour.
Salome Sato, of Maunalani Heights, has been a substitute teacher since 1995.
