July 11, 2007 - OBSERVATION [Note: I last attended a MFT contract negotiation session on 5-31-07. Since then, there have been sessions on 6-13, 6-22, and 6-29. Since the regular school year ended on 6-12, there have been negotiation sessions generally on Wednesday afternoons (6-13) and all day Friday (6-22 and 6-29).] The negotiating sessions have evolved somewhat from my last observation, and this is particularly evident in the constant reference by negotiators to written notes about issues and proposed changes. Not having access to these notes makes it difficult to track on some details of the discussion. This negotiating session was scheduled from 2:00 to 6:00, and had fewer participants than any of the other sessions that I have attended, about 16 in all, only three of which are from the district administration. At a break, Emma tells me that many of the principals on the committee are out of town at some leadership training session, and many of the senior district administrators are attending an education event at Harvard. I arrived at the negotiation session 50 minutes after the scheduled start time. When I entered the room the negotiators were discussing media specialist teachers, which seems to be part of a larger topic about specialist teachers in general. The discussion seems focused on the preparation and other no-student time that is necessary to prepare for media instruction. Both teacher and administration negotiators seem to agree that it is really hard to say what a typical media specialist does, because there is great variation in the amount of actual media specialist time and in the amount of help media specialist teachers get from non-teacher aides. An administrator notes that there are district-level media resource personnel, including media-focused TOSAs and general district tech people who could maybe help with some things at school sites. The discussion comes to the point where everybody agrees that they need more information about how media teachers actually operate, so a task is set to gather this information and then to return to this topic in a later negotiation session. Specifically, information will be gathered about (1) media specialist schedules in each building, (2) media support people in each school, and (3) the size of each school. Colleen Kososki is referenced as a print person for information about media specialists. The conversation shifts (perhaps returns) briefly to another related topic about split positions, and teacher negotiators note that specialist teachers often have split positions. The negotiators reference the printed material, specifically part of it that seems to be a proposal from the teachers about how transfers to split positions should be handled, and when these are voluntary transfers and when they are “placements”. An administrator notes that if teachers gets placed in split positions, they get mileage (presumably for travel between sites), but if they voluntarily transfer, they do not. Rob comments that because so many specialist positions are partial positions, specialist teachers are often effectively forced to take a split position, even in a voluntary transfer. There is another slight change in topic, which again starts by Rob referencing a written proposal from the teachers, stating something to the effect that every teacher should have their own desk, and not be required to share a desk. This proposal relates to specialist teachers in particular. Another teacher chimes in saying that it is a reasonable expectation that professionals like teachers, or doctors, should have designated, personal desk space where they can work. An administrator asks if it really has to be a “desk” or if it can be “designated space”, which may not be an actual desk. Another administrator states that if school sites have space for a desk for every specialist teacher, then they almost certainly do have a desk for each teacher, because the district is not limited by not having enough desks. A limitation is much more likely to be in building space, so if some teachers do not have a designated, personal desk, that is almost certainly a function of available building space, and not a desire to deprive teachers of desks. A teacher replies that having a personal locked space is important, because occasionally kids take things that aren’t theirs. Emma replies that the contract already guarantees teachers some locked space for their use. An administrator pushes the point about trying to meet the teacher concerns, but getting away from the concept of an actual desk, saying that he worries about requiring small, full schools to have a specific number of desks that might take up too much space. Emma says that she supports the general concern of the teachers, and another administrator says that nobody likes the art-on-a-cart model of specialist teachers without designated space. Emma says she would generally support a statement that all teachers should have personal desk space, but says she has trouble seeing how contract language could be phrased to cover all possible situations. She supports the other administrator’s suggestion of “designated space” language. Rob objects to using only the term “designated space”, saying that this does not address the basic issue that every individual teacher should have their own desk. A couple other teachers comment about finding it rather remarkable that the negotiators can’t come up with a basic agreement about the fact that teachers should have a desk. Rob agrees that he finds it amazing that we can’t guarantee a teacher a desk, and he is also surprised that the negotiation team has spent so much time on this particular topic. Emma replies that everybody in the room agrees in principle that every teacher should have a desk, but the question is about space-limited buildings with four or five 0.2 specialists. In such a situation, Emma suggests, we don’t want to be forced into giving every partial teacher designated desk space in a school. Rob counters saying that the really basic issue is that professionals should have a desk, and that all of the professionals in the district administration have their own desks. Emma replies with a suggestion that comparing teachers to other district professionals might not be appropriate, because no other professionals in the district get their jobs by seniority bidding. Rob replies that MFT would be happy to have other district professionals have seniority, Emma says no thanks. An administrator reiterates that everybody agrees that teachers should have desks, but that beyond that, the desk issue should really be worked out through reasonable discussion between teachers and principals at the school sites. A teacher notes that this means a “reasonable” solution can be achieved 68% of the time, apparently referencing a previously-discussed estimate that teacher/principal relations are positive in this fraction of schools. Emma says that if there is a specific concern from teachers that the principal at their school is interfering with a reasonable professional expectation to have designated desk space, then the teacher should work through the administration’s contract administration group to find a resolution. A teacher notes that some teachers are reluctant to do this, and Emma replies that teacher/principal disputes about things like desk space should be resolved through existing systems, and not be written into the contract. Rob then says that this is just what the contract is for, that if everybody agrees that the system is supposed to work a particular way, that way should be defined in the contract. Negotiators on both sides seem to acknowledge reaching a temporary stalemate on this rather trivial issue, and remark with some surprise that the desk discussion to almost half an hour. The discussion turns to another detail of specialist teachers, and at this point I can see some of the text that is being referenced, as it is included on the projected notes that are being taken as the conversation continues. Following are the first five bullet points from a list of about a dozen, these are apparently teacher suggestions for changes: Emma comments on the suggestion that all K-12 schools implement “district-essential” guidelines for instructional subject elements, saying this is a policy issue, not a contract issue. A teacher notes that some school sites decide not to offer art, or elements of arts instruction, and there needs to be equity in what schools have for art programming. There is some general discussion about the fact that the amount of arts instruction offered at schools is often adjusted to meet budget guidelines. The teacher proposal suggest that there be an expectation of the minimum amount of arts instruction available to each child in the district. An administrator describes the budget tie-out process where some schools will come with a check in hand to buy arts instruction. A teacher replies that such a situation creates an inequitable distribution of arts programming, and she again suggests a requirement for a minimum level of arts instruction. An administrator notes that this would be an overall cost increase for the district, and she asks the teacher what they propose to cut to pay for this increased commitment to arts instruction. The teacher counters that the administration seems to have “lots of Area Superintendents” and that maybe reducing those positions would free up some funds. Another teacher brings up the fact that some sites will kill a certain element of arts instruction, in order to remove a teacher. Everybody around the table agrees that such a practice does indeed happen, and Emma says that concerns about this should be brought up through the labor/management system. The conversation turns to the teacher suggestion about music teachers declaring in writing annually what they are highly qualified to teach. The teachers are advancing this idea, and the administrators seem not to fully understand it at first. The issue behind this proposal seems to be the fact that a music teaching license is not specific enough to ensure that voice teachers teach voice and that band teachers teach band, not vice versa. An administrator agrees that even though there are multiple types of music teaching licenses, they are not specific enough to define specific music teaching skills, and that this particular issue of making sure that music teachers with the right training land in the right job is “an enormous headache for HR”. A teacher says that music teachers came up with the suggestion of annually declaring what they are “highly qualified” to teach, and have suggested using this as a guideline in the matching of teachers and teaching jobs. An administrator says such a guideline is fine in theory, but what happens when using the proposed self-declarations of qualification leads to staff reduction out of seniority order. The teachers say that this shouldn’t be a problem, but the administrator then suggests that what the teachers are proposing is creating separate seniority lists based on the teacher declarations of qualification. The teachers say some things, neither confirming or denying that they are proposing the creation of separate seniority lists, but the administrators now seem to realize that separate seniority lists might be an outcome of this conversation, and they suggest support for the idea, saying that it would improve the problems HR has with managing music teacher qualifications. Emma expresses interest in the general idea, she suggests to the teachers that they put together some proposed language, and that the negotiation committee should return to the issue after this has been done. The teachers quietly agree to this proposal. At this point, it is decided that the next issue for discussion is NCLB and AYP issues. The teacher negotiators say that the want to “caucus” before launching into this discussion. The administrator negotiators agree and start to leave the room. Rob addresses me and says that the caucus discussions are private, and that I should wait in the hall. After the administrators and I leave the negotiation room, the teachers close the meeting room door, and the administrators go into a different room and close that door. The state mediator tells me that the caucus time will last about 20 minutes. The caucus discussions last about 20-25 minutes, and while waiting in the hall, I discover that the MFT building has open wi-fi access, allowing me to catch some email. Toward the end of my time in the hall, the State mediator comes by to tell me that the full meeting will reconvene in a few minutes. I ask him about what he thinks about the progress of the negotiations, and his first response is a laugh. He tells me that during the time he has been working with the MFT/MPS negotiation, he has started and finished teacher contract negotiations from two other districts. I ask him why it is so much slower here, and he says that he thinks that there are two main factors; the number of people at the table and the number of issues. He says that generally other district negotiation sessions have a maximum of 15 people at the table, but here we have almost twice that many. He says that the MFT/MPS negotiators have identified 19 different issues, and that so far, only one has been resolved. He says that at the last negotiation session, on June 29, the group came to agreement on the issue of technology. However there are many more issues to go, so the mediator estimates that the negotiation process is no more than one-third complete. The negotiation meeting reassembles and the topic is declared to be AYP/NCLB. Again, a printed document, apparently describing a proposal by the teachers, is passed out and repeatedly referenced during the discussion. Rob introduces the proposals, saying that they are generally proposing that changes related to NCLB issues should happen earlier in the year. Rob describes the proposal as defining how AYP-motivated changes would take place at school sites, and that the proposals for change actions differ depending if the school is at Stage 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5. Rob says that much of the proposal language is taken from the US Dept. of Education website, particularly all of the proposal language covering changes at Stage 1 and 2 sites. The proposal apparently outlines a process for implementing changes in Stage 3 schools which includes (1) early notification of all site staff (teachers) about the intent to make a programmatic change, (2) holding a meeting of all potentially affected staff, (3) developing a plan for programmatic change collaboratively with teachers and the administration, ( 4) an affirmative vote for implementation of the new plan by 70% of the site staff, and (5) approval of the new plan by the MPS School Board. It becomes clear quickly from Rob’s comments that one significant issue behind this proposal is teacher frustration with the short-notification “fresh starts” that the district administration decided to implement at two North-side schools this spring. Rob specifically states that the district administration was of little help at these schools before the fresh starts were announced, and that the proposal on the table is in part designed to encourage engagement of the district administration earlier in the process. More generally, he describes the proposal as an attempt to define a clear process for NCLB-driven changes in the district, with an emphasis on making decisions early in the time cycle. The administrators and Emma seem to take a while to understand of what the teachers are proposing, but they start to respond to it by talking about the specific timing of actions in the proposal. There is a discussion about just when the district gets AYP information from the state, and it is noted that even after this happens in September, there is a period where the district has a chance to correct the inevitable mistakes and miscalculations in the state’s assessment. Rob notes that the law requires parents to be notified of a schools AYP status with enough lead time to make a change in their schools, if they are allowed to under AYP guidelines. Rob suggests that teachers should have this same lead time to understand if there are going to be significant programmatic changes to their school. Both teachers and administrators seem to agree that the legally-mandated timing of reporting and decision-making do not always make sense, and that sometimes the law requires a decision before the law mandates the issuance of the data needed to make that decisions. Emma finally speaks up, saying basically that the whole proposal is way beyond what the district administration would find acceptable. Rob starts his defense by saying that the proposal really just echoes what is mandated by NCLB, so he doesn’t see what objection the administration would have to the proposal. Emma says that NCLB sets a minimum legal standard, and that the district doesn’t want to be locked into following just that legal standard minimum. Emma also says that the language of the proposal moves away from resolving a staffing issue to defining program-change guidelines for high-needs schools. Rob responds that the proposal is based in a concern by teachers that they not be surprised by significant changes in the school, and that the teachers want to build a framework for developing understanding of the process. Emma says that notifying teachers is one thing, but it is a quite different thing to codify a process that restricts what the Superintendent and the Chief Academic Officer can do to create a new program. Emma says that the real problem is the huge multi-step process that is being proposed for Stage 3 and above schools; the process of notification, collaborative development of program change, and then teacher voting on acceptance of the plan. Emma notes that none of those requirements are in place now, and that she is certain that the administration would have no interest in creating this massive process that would only restrict their options. A teacher responds, asking Emma if she sees validity in the teacher concern about being “blindsided” by change, which is the real impetus for this proposal. Emma says sure, in a basic sense she understands and sympathizes with this concern, but the question is about what gets mandated contractually. Emma says that she has no problem with the teacher proposal for Stage 1 and 2, as that is what is in the law, but the Stage 3 proposal is the problem, restricting flexibility about what the district administration can do when. Emma says that it is a clear management prerogative of the district administration to make unilateral decisions about school programming. She notes that the administration can start a new program, change a principal or even fresh start any school in the district at any time. Another administrator steps in and suggests that the real core concerns of the teachers seem to be (1) the issue of notification and (2) teachers needing to have a chance to “buy in” to proposed programmatic changes at a school. A teacher agrees in principle, saying that the teachers want to know about these changes early enough to make personal and professional decisions, and to have an opportunity to be a part of the solution. Rob speaks up and says that he doesn’t like the administrator’s preceding use of the phrase “buy in”, as it suggests that someone else has brought the finalized solution, so he would prefer language identifying a “collaborative solution”. The administrator moves on, saying that creating a highly prescriptive process for program change does not seem to meet the basic teacher objectives of receiving notification and having input. Rob counters that the most prescriptive parts of the proposal are those that are defined in federal law, which generally calls for a collaborative approach and a tight time frame. The administrator suggests that the negotiators for the administration take the teacher proposal back and see if they can come up with some proposed language of their own. Rob responds asking why can’t we now just identify key roadblocks in this language creation process. He states that he doesn’t understand how any of the teacher proposal limits the administrations. Emma says that with the proposal of the teachers, the district administration can’t take options like fresh starting schools or other such things. Rob asks Emma if the district holds the position of being able to fresh start schools with no notification. Emma confirms this, saying that such things are an inherent managerial prerogative. She notes that fresh starts are not likely, and that historically the process has been quite collaborative with MFT. Rob replies asking Emma if she can conceive of a situation where the district would almost randomly fresh start a school. Emma replies that the administration places a high value on collaboration with the teachers, but things like fresh starts are basic managerial option of the district administration. Rob keeps pushing, asking Emma why the district would want to fresh start a school, and why establishing a process for more collaboration is threatening to the district. Emma says that what the teacher proposal would do is create a grieveable process around this issue, and that the while the administration wants to work with MFT to improve schools, creating this process is not the way to do it. Rob counters that what the administration wants to do is to create chaos. Emma snaps back at Rob that she really doesn’t appreciate comments like that, and that what they are talking about is the difference between mandating a process and building a collaborative relationship. Emma also describes how the district and MFT have historically had a collaborative relationship. Rob replies that he sure supports collaboration, but he notes that the ideal is that teachers and the administration never have to pick up the contract, implying that the contract is largely meant to be referenced only in times of labor/management disagreement. Rob continues, asking the administrators what specific things in the proposal don’t fit with your interests. An administrator says that the proposed process supposes that the solutions would all be collaborative, but the district maintains a managerial right to implement changes. Rob replies that the goal of the process is to have clarity and a minimum expectation to the process. An administrator replies that she heard teachers wanting input. She says that the administration has no problem with that, but this language would mandate that MFT have agreement with administration decisions, not just input. [At this point in the discussion, 5:10, I am due to return home, so I leave in the middle of the conversation.] |