Negotiations Update #2 - Evaluation and Time
Dear Colleagues,
EVALUATIONS:
In 2013 we were able to negotiate language to offset state law governing how Reductions in Force would follow teacher evaluation ratings. We adopted language that would allow the Board to RIF mostly by tenure status and seniority instead of by teacher ratings. This “comparable” evaluation language expires with the current contract. To us, the state language that forces a Board to lay-off by ratings is completely unacceptable. It would allow a tenured teacher rated “developing” to be RIFd before a non-tenured teacher rated “skilled.” It wipes out most of our tenure protections and allows subjectivity and bias to prevail in evaluations. It does not take into account if someone is teaching in a new subject area, has more students, has an inclusion class or a myriad of other variables that make evaluations non-comparable. We hope to be creative about changing the language or keeping what we have in the current agreement.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT:
For decades we have had language in our contract around training that states that professional development that occurs outside of the normal work day or school year is “Voluntary and Compensated.” During the 2013 negotiations we allowed the Board to have “Mandatory and Compensated” training for very specific programs with very specific guidelines. We called it “Essential Training.” This year at the negotiating table the Board wants to decimate our current language and replace it with a version of “you have to go where I say, when I say, and we’ll pay you.” They also don’t want to pay anyone to go to any voluntary training.
We are not in agreement with forcing members to go to whatever training the current administration thinks is important. We want to ensure that the language around mandatory training is tightly reigned in as it is in our current language. Summers, weekends, and evenings are not owned by the District.
MORE TIME TEACHING:
In two different proposals from the Board during negotiations there have been attempts to allow administration to assign an extra assignments to high school teachers without paying them more money. This would eliminate an agreement that we have for all levels that protects planning time. Additionally, if all high school teachers taught 20% more, then we would probably lose a lot of teachers – potentially 1 out of every 5 teachers could be laid off. Obviously, we do not agree with the Board’s proposals.
Next time: Compensation and Benefits
In Union,
Ari Klein, President