Print
Schools receive poor health ratings on PSRP Report card
PSRPs across the country give their schools barely passing marks on important environmental health issues such as mold prevention, according to a school report card issued by the American Association of Classified School Employees (AACSE). Staff were asked to grade their schools in 11 areas—including staffing levels and training for maintenance workers, programs to test and control for various hazards, efforts to promote good air quality, and communication. More than 350 school staff responded, and in no area did they give a grade above C-. D’s were awarded in several areas, and the overall grade for “healthy high-performing schools” was C-.
The results were released earlier this year at the AACSE’s annual legislative conference. (The AFT’s PSRP division is affiliated with the AACSE.) “Our report card points to the urgent need for proactive school building construction and maintenance,” says AACSE president Gary Rychard. “Well-planned maintenance programs not only improve the health of students and staff; they also save money in the long run.”
Also during the meeting, a panel of PSRPs talked about conditions in their schools. At a briefing on Capitol Hill, the panelists, including two AFT members, talked about problems ranging from staff cuts and bad building design (even in new schools) to leaky roofs and widespread mold. The unhealthy conditions “hinder our ability to function at the work site,” says Teresa Blankenship, an office employee and member of the United School Employees of Pasco in Florida. “It makes it harder to work and tougher for students to learn.”
One possible solution to improving school health would be to grant the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) authority to monitor environmental health conditions for students, suggests Darryl Alexander, who directs the AFT’s health and safety program. NIOSH can currently evaluate and improve workplace conditions for adults, she says, but has no mandate to intervene on behalf of children.
More information on the school report card, including results, is available online at www.aacse.org.
NYSUT Delegates Approve Merger with NEA/New York
Delegates to the annual convention of the New York State United Teachers completed an eight-year effort to unite with NEA/NY by voting on May 5 to create a powerful merged statewide union.“This is an historic day,” NYSUT president and AFT vice president Richard Iannuzzi told the 2,000 delegates meeting in Rochester. “Uniting with NEA/NY gives us a stronger, more credible voice for our professions, our students, our patients and the working families of New York.” The merger brings together the 535,000 members of NYSUT and NEA/NY’s 35,000 members. NEA/NY delegates approved the agreement in April.
“At long last, we’ll walk the walk together,” NEA/NY president Robin Rapaport told delegates. He noted that the combined membership would reap the benefits of both organizations and stressed the importance of “the history we make.”
The merger will be effective Sept. 1, 2006. The new, united organization will maintain New York State United Teachers as its name and will be headquartered in Latham, N.Y. New York joins three other states—Florida, Minnesota and Montana—in merging its AFT-NEA state federations.
Connecticut to study paraprofessional standards
Connecticut has become the latest state to move toward standards for the employment and training of paraprofessionals—something the AFT has long supported. Many local school districts and about a dozen states have established standards for paraprofessionals. The details of these vary considerably, and in some cases only apply to special education paras.
While Connecticut is not adopting standards for paraprofessionals right away, it plans to study the issue to decide if standards should be established. AFT Connecticut was instrumental in convincing the state to conduct the comprehensive study, which will look at whether it should establish statewide minimum standards for public school paraprofessionals who perform instructional tasks, and whether it should establish different categories for paraprofessionals. The study will analyze 12 areas, including:
■ defining the scope of duties performed by paraprofessionals;
■ determining the number of paras in the state, and the level of state and local education resources devoted to recruitment, retention and training of paraprofessionals;
■ describing existing education and experience requirements for paras and identifying models used by other states to train, hire and compensate paras; and
■ summarizing the range of existing wage structures that include salary and fringe benefits for paraprofessionals.
