The meeting was scheduled to start at 8:30, but doesn’t actually get going until 9:05. Rob passes out binders full of papers, and apologizes for the delay. [The material passed out by MFT is presumably the “complete proposal” from MFT, which the district administration has been requesting] Rob starts off saying that his team will go through each of the proposed changes for the administrators. He notes that the material passed out is modified sections of contract language, not the entire contract document. Rob steps through the proposal, by each contract article. [Most of Rob’s remarks reference specific details of the printed document. As I don’t receive a copy of the document, it is sometimes difficult to understand exactly what the discussion is referring to.] Article 1 (General): Only modified dates for a new contract period, and changes related to pay beyond duty days. Article 2 (Teacher Assignments and Schedules): Proposed changes to length of teachers day and professional meetings. Other language “clarifications”. A new section (7) about coordination time for media. Also, modified dates, changed language on school nurses, and some language regarding discipline is added to the part about summer school. An administrator asks if one of the proposed changes was meant to propose that Columbus Day and Veterans Day not be duty days. There is discussion and Rob clarifies that the proposed change under discussion was meant to clarify something else, but not to propose those holidays not be duty days. Rob continues, noting that there is new language related to ECFE that is from a previous MOA. However, he notes that part of that MOA was about Saturday school, and that part is not in the newly-proposed contract language. Article 3 (Teacher Rights and Responsibilities): A proposed change clarifying the responsibilities of social workers and special education teachers, which, Rob says, speaks for itself. Article 4 (Shared Leadership for Continuous Improvement): A proposed change striking out a section about redesigning staffing for high-needs schools. Rob notes that the intention behind this particular change is consistent throughout the proposed contract modifications. Rob describes this intention as trying to focus on what works for kids, rather than focusing on NCLB-related structures. Rob says that the changes proposed by MFT attempted to remove all references to NCLB from the contract document, noting that he felt NCLB is a federal mandate that is destroying public education. Article 5 (Professional Development): Clarifications and some additional graphs [showing what?]. Rob says that some of these changes came from “mentors and PAR-mentors” [I’m not quite sure what that means]. Rob also points out several “language updates”, and some new langrage about timelines for the “guided PDP” process. The PDP language change is something about how a teacher transfers jobs during the PDP process. Rob also highlights a change that is about how a team is put together for a PSP plan, and how a teacher transfers jobs when they are involved with a PSP plan/process. There are also changes about how a PAR panel is set up, and some other language changes about staff development. Article 6 (Student Behavior/Discipline): Rob notes that this article is one the negotiators had a tentative agreement on, so the proposal simply replicates that. Article 7 (Basic Salaries and Rates of Pay): Clarifications about where the hourly flat rate applies. Article 8 (Other Assignment, Work, and Salary Schedules): A “box” is added that defines different “rates”, with the intent of making the contract language clear and consistent. Article 9 (Reserve Teachers): The Reserve Teacher Task Force has completed its work and disbanded, so language related to that is struck. Existing language in section G was almost identical to language in section A, so G was eliminated. Article 10 (Group Benefits): Language is “updated”, dates are updated, numbers are changed related to dependant coverage. Something is changed about retiree insurance, other numbers are changed and “increased”. Article 11 (Personal Injury/Property Benefits): No changes Article 12 (Leaves of Absence): No changes Article 13 (Working Conditions): Language changes, and a “big change” in Section B about class size. Rob notes that MFT had previously put out a proposal about class size, and that this current proposal is different. Rob notes that the document in front of the negotiators summarizes current district class sizes, and summarizes the class sizes “the referendum called for”. He says that the goal of the MFT proposal is to reduce overall class size, but to focus on reducing the class sizes for particular students. Rob describes that the proposal would focus on class size limits, but would count different kids in different ways toward that class-size limit. Rob describes the proposal as counting special education kids as 1.5, ELL kids as 1.3, kids qualifying for Free or Reduced lunch as 1.3, and I think one other designation that I missed. Rob notes that the goal of this student counting scheme would be to reduce class sizes and insure that students who need the most attention get it. Rob described that the MFT plan proposed a system that would penalize the district if any single class size exceeded the average class size by three or more students. The proposal would provide that the teacher who had the large class would get $1000 through various funding mechanisms. Rob then flips the page and describes a further provision of the proposal, which applies specifically to special education teachers. Article 14 (Grievance Procedures): No changes Article 15 (Job Share Procedures): No changes Article 16 (Transfer, Reassignment, and Recall): There is a change creating an opportunity for people to move internally to open positions in a building before the position is posted district-wide. Rob describes an additional proposed change calling for the whole teacher job-filling process to be moved forward, with the goal of having all teachers leaving on the last day of the school year knowing where they will be working the next fall. Rob describes another change that calls on the schools to provide “as much detail as possible” about open teaching positions. Rob describes a new section that has been added that relates to realignment. Rob says that the MFT proposal is “stolen from a couple other districts”. He describes the proposal saying that teachers would keep all of the licenses that they have earned, but they would be able to “shelve” any given license of their choosing. This shelving process would mean that the particular license could no longer be considered by the district administration as a job qualification, meaning that teachers who shelved licenses could not be realigned into jobs that required these particular licenses. The proposal defines a deadline for declaring licenses shelved, and also how shelved licenses could be recalled. An administrator asks Rob to help her understand what the benefit of the shelving process is to the district. Rob replies that the district benefits from teachers having multiple licenses, and that the proposal would keep realignment to a minimum, while teachers keep control of their licenses. Rob goes on to describe other proposed changes in this section, changes in section references, and another change focusing on high-needs schools class sizes. An administrator asks Rob to clarify the union’s intent about the class-size proposal, saying that the issue central to high-needs schools is achievement, which is not necessarily about class size. Rob replies saying that he hears the administrator saying that class size is not critical to student achievement, and that he disagrees. The administrator says that class size is not the “be-all-end-all” for student achievement, that it is part of the solution, not the only solution. Rob replies saying that MFT is not suggesting that class size is the exclusive solution, just that it is part of the solution. Rob further says that he thinks people who suggest class size doesn’t matter are like people who say that global warming isn’t happening. Rob goes on, highlighting other proposed changes, saying that an underlying motivation for some of the changes is to best enable teachers who voluntarily transfer to understand where their skills are best applied. Rob says that good information is the key to making the teacher-decided voluntary transfer process work. Rob also highlights some existing language that has been struck in the MFT proposal, saying that MFT thought that language had no impact on student achievement. Article 17 (Technology): Rob describes new language about teachers having access to a paper shredder, allowing teachers secure disposal of confidential information. Rob notes that the proposal is worded in a “whatever solution we can find” format to allow flexibility. Article 18 (Seniority): Rob says “Seniority: no recommended changes”, and notes that this then brings the discussion to the “financial page”, and he tells the negotiators that they can see what MFT is calling for in adjustments to the salary schedule.[I learn later that MFT is proposing 5% increases in the salary scale for each of the two years of the contract] Rob talks about the proposed change to the teacher salary structure. He says that if one were to look at the teacher salary trend for the last few years, one would see that the MFT salary schedule has fallen behind the inflation rate, and that over this time other districts have made changes that make them “more competitive” with Minneapolis. Rob says that “we” surely want the best teachers to come to Minneapolis and that the salary schedule should reflect that. An administrator asks Rob to clarify which other districts he was comparing the Minneapolis salaries to, and Rob responds somewhat indirectly, suggesting St. Paul, Anoka, Minnetonka, Eden Prairie, and Eagan as possible comparative districts. Rob invites the negotiator to look across the state for comparative salary schedules, and notes the that there have been 15 or 16 teacher contract settlements so far this year in the metro area alone. Rob states that this concludes his introduction of MFT’s proposed contract changes, and that he and the other MFT negotiators are open for questions. He invites the administration negotiators to take some time in caucus (in private) to review the proposal and they accept the offer, suggesting a break of about 30 minutes. All the teacher negotiators, and I, then leave the negotiation room. The break lasts only about 20 minutes before an administrator calls the teachers back in to the negotiation conference room. After all are reseated at the negotiation table, an administrator thanks the teachers for their proposal, and announces that it will take the administration two to three weeks to “digest” the proposal, respond to it, and to present a responding proposal from the administration. There is a conversation about possible future dates for negotiation meetings. In the exchange, Rob suggests that the next meeting be on Wednesday, November 21st, a day that MPS students do not attend school. An administrator requests that the negotiation team plan on twice-weekly meetings after Thanksgiving. The following schedule is ultimately agreed upon: |