MFT/MPS Negotiation Session Notes: There were 21 people in attendance. Three new members of the Administration team were introduced. They have been selected to replace 3 members, including Von Shepard and Mike Favor, who have left the district. One of the replacements is Gary Pedersen, Ass’t Principal at Edison, where it is my understanding that they have done interview-and-select hiring for the EBD Citywide SPAN program. (I am not sure of what the acronyms stand for.) The MFT/MPS Negotiation Session began around 8:35am, with a “reframing activity” that gave all participants (including me) pause to share a good or new thing that happened to them in the past 24 hours. I shared that what was new for me was sitting and listening to the session. Immediately following this sharing, each group caucused privately, from 8:50-9:30am. I waited in the hallway where I spoke briefly with Mr. Bais Levai, the mediator. I asked him if he had a pulse on when the negotiations might end, and he said that was contingent on new information that will be shared in the next session about the budget for staffing. It was anticipated that the session would cover 3 issues:
The piece of the contract dealing with the process for discipline was revised to be:
Additionally, there was a change recommended by MPS staff member Margaret Webster, to revise some of the language about expulsion. In her review of the contract, Margaret had pointed out that the language was “against district policy and state statute.” A district rep stated that the new language provides for fewer bulleted responsibilities of the Behavioral Committee, consolidating language. A statement was added that “sites can be referred to the PLT (or the district’s Professional Leadership Team) for additional support when necessary.” Rob Panning-Miller suggested that there be a tiered behavioral support process, with a 1st-level intervention, for example before referral to the PLT. He stated that those involved should first bring forth their area of concern; there should be an investigation, followed by a discussion in the PLT, if necessary. A district rep pointed out that one challenge is that judgments of what has happened are subjective, and so gauging the appropriate response is difficult, as well as knowing where to go when those involved feel that their concerns are not heard. Emma Hixson attempted to close the discussion, saying that there were 5-6 assessments or recommendations that dealt with site gaps, the assessment process itself and referrals for additional support. She said that “we could toss this around like a hot potato,” and recommended moving on. Someone pointed out that the issue does require further discussion and is a valid concern, and that the Joint Labor Management Committee must discern when there’s a need for additional help from the PLT. Attendees agreed that the bullet was about the need for precise support at the school level. Rob distinguished between the Behavior Committee’s role as being a big-picture, policy committee that cannot always meet the needs of a site, whereas the PLT is available for crises and hands-on triage. An MFT rep stated that a “clearinghouse” group is needed to figure out which group to engage, and that the Joint Labor Management Committee, (Joint LM Comm.), is not where referrals should be taken for individual situations. Someone stated, however, that there might be individual situations where the Committee might need to be involved. There was agreement that the last bullet was not “global,” but rather, it incorporated the concept of the need for support at the school level and a framework for thinking of how the referral process will occur. At around 10:00am, there was consensus that everyone was pleased with the new language. There was some other brief discussion about cleaning up language in the contract. Around 10:00am, an MFT member commented briefly about discipline, saying that trying to report incidents accurately is burdened by issues of race and equity, and “how we deal with the subject of judgments we make significantly impacts the outcomes of the discipline.” There was brief discussion about how to incorporate this sensitivity into the contract. The MFT member said that there is a “disproportionality” of how the system deals with discipline issues and “that’s why the data looks the way it does.” An MPS rep said that the Joint LM Committee would like to see more schools engage in Courageous Conversations, that the district has data that observes behavioral incidents, and that “there is as much perception as there is factual information” as to what is happening. He asked, “How do we sort it out?” and “What part of this goes into the contract?” Rob referred back to the contract itself, asking a question about some language he saw missing. He was advised by other attendees that the language was not lost, but re-organized, and that discussion was dropped. Shortly after 10:00am, the discussion around teacher transfers, reassignments and lay-offs began in earnest, opened by Emma. She spoke of priorities for MPS Admin as the negotiations begin:
She said the gist of their priorities were to “enhance the professional learning communities” in a way that upholds “program integrity.” Rob identified priorities for MFT:
Emma invited the whole group to brainstorm. Rob requested that the Admin lay out its position first. Emma said that brainstorming would allow the group to look at issues from all angles. She advocated for “a redesign in this area to bring out the best-possible potential for successful learning communities—and to get the best buy-in and trust from the broader community as possible.” Another Admin rep indicated that we have to look at a variety of points on the compass—and start to sketch out how it would look to find common ground and put the combined values into practice. He acknowledged the fears and unspoken conversations that are occurring and asked why we don’t say the whole story. He said we need to look at how assignments are made, and what new training is needed, in addition to what teachers are really saying. He wanted to know more about teachers’ input and what “best fits” would look like. He said, “We’re not talking about jobs here, but about the best fit that will maximize everyone’s strengths.” (He then made an analogy that he feels halfway across the bridge, but wants to get to the other side, and attendees started chiming in that with the recent 35W bridge collapse, we need new metaphors.) Rob said we need to get clear on what we’re about, and that we’re approaching this topic as if there’s consensus prematurely, because we’re “not there yet.” Emma validated that there are a number of pieces to the problem and far too many situations where “there are bad fits between a teacher and a site.” An Admin rep said we’re not taking into account the whole learning community, but looking only at individual teachers.” She said that even when elementary teachers have the same license, for instance, they still bring many different strengths and skills to the school,” and that the “current system doesn’t let us look at the diversity of skills we need on teams.” Emma added that since 1977, when the seniority bidding system was put in place, schools have changed dramatically, and that the demand to meet the needs of an increasingly diverse community has led to increased specialization. She said we need teams that are skilled for these models, and our system doesn’t allow for that. She recalled “hiring like crazy” in 1997, but added that the instability of the district and the combined lay-offs and decreased enrollment ask that we “question if there’s not a better way.” She went on to say, “We want to treat teachers as professionals, and MFT has worked hard to increase the professional stature of teachers.” She said that she “believes in unions,” and her brother is a union organizer. She said this discussion is “not about taking rights away, but about wanting to create a new model that does create respect for teachers.” Another Admin rep spoke to the commonalities that are in the value lists for both Admin and MFT, asking, “How can we increase choice and respect for all professionals in the district?” Another Admin Rep said that this is a “clarifying process,” that begs the question, “What would a new way look like, a process that is fair and gives teachers choices?” She said, “We’d like to build this process with you. We look at St. Paul’s model a lot, but we’d like to ask what “interview & select” might look like.” Rob indicated that we’re not quite ready to jump into that, that we need to gain clarity on what precisely is not working here, rather than on what is working elsewhere. He re-stated Emma’s concerns for the purposes of clarity: too many situations that don’t take into account the whole learning environment; schools not the same any longer with more specialization. Everyone agreed that he’d heard the issues correctly. Rob then asked, “But are we acting more out of crisis rather than realistically assessing what needs to change with the current system?” Emma responded that “we’ve done a lot of soul-searching, especially since it’s a hard time for district teachers.” She said that Admin does not want to approach this from a deficit model. She said, “We’re at the dawn of a new day, and we’re being asked to change for our students.” She added, “We’re not the only game in town, and we don’t want to seed the ground for private schools and charters. We’re not factories.” Another Admin rep added that we need to clarify who determines what skill sets are needed, and begin to create a process for one scenario where this can be accomplished. Rob said, “We do want answers, but we have to agree on what the problems are before we can get to solutions.” An Admin rep stated that we may never get consensus on what the problems are. We must begin to ask, “How can we make our schools better?” Rather than look at this as a problem, we need to be asking, “How can we have the best community?” 10:30am He said he’s been in meetings where there’s a clear suggestion that teachers don’t want to teach in certain, low-performing schools and that teachers are leaving from the schools with low test scores. He said that when he’s asked why teachers are leaving, no one from the Administration could answer him. He asked, “Have you asked teachers in a meaningful way why they leave?” He said “we need data on how often they’re leaving, why? what the bad fits look like, and where the criticism’s coming from.” He said, “We may have to agree to disagree, and that we will not get far without meaningful data. Bernadeia Johnson responded that in the strategic planning process, we are beginning to get feedback from teachers and staff as to what they want:
She said they do have data, and it will soon be posted. She said that up until now, they have not had granular information, but they are looking for themes, and they are getting answers to what makes teachers stay. The Edison Ass’t Principal spoke to the trend that since the EBD Citywide SPAN program has implemented interview-and-select, the turnover (which used to be huge) is now less than 10% for both educational assistants and teachers, and that staff choose to stay. He said that, in addition, there are less referrals to mediators for problem resolution. An Admin rep said that we’ve been running our schools like vehicles that are just maintained, but not fine-tuned, and we have to change that, so that “teachers on the team are allowed to make selections for their schools.” Emma said that, in fact, we have no good, hard data, and the union has the best information on that. She said we need to do a better job of data collection, but that the “academic achievement data is really all we need.” She said this isn’t meant as criticism of teachers, but as a validation for the need for a “positive redesign approach rather than a deficit model.” To that, another Admin rep added, “And we can’t do this in isolation, but we need to bring principal evaluations and other pieces together into the process.” 10:40am He said that those present are assuming that a new system will make the achievement gap disappear, but asks, “Are we saying that teachers cannot adjust to new situations?” “Are we assuming that teachers cannot acquire the skills they need to meet the needs of the times?” An Admin rep suggested throwing this question out to the teachers. He asked, “What are the issues as you see them? What makes a fit not a ‘good fit’?” How do we make that assessment? Is it based, for example, on evaluations of skills, from parent feedback? Emma said, “Let me take that on.” She indicates that she is an attorney, trained in civil rights. She asked what if an organization wanted to hire her not to defend civil rights, but to get around them. She said that each assignment is a “marriage between what you bring and the expectations of the assignment.” She said, “If it’s just a job, the person will not commit to the professionalism required.” Rob said that Emma’s example is indicative of the dangers of game-playing in the interview process and that no teacher would go into the situation blind. He said that additionally, Emma’s example demonstrates precisely that games are being played in the selection process. He said that it would be dangerous to shift the game-playing to the other side without realizing what’s behind the games being played. Emma stated that some elements of right fit include: the culture, the goals of the community, and a teacher’s commitment to more than going through the motions of training. Rob said that teachers want accurate information about an environment, that their job descriptions are not accurate, and that teachers are often abused in interviews. He said that there have been many cases of principals mis-reading information about a teacher’s background, and that stellar teachers are being denied appointments that match their skills. He said, “We will not eliminate games or problems with interview-and-select.” Another MFT Rep asked, “What happens when the whole school team is dysfunctional? What will we need to fix then?” An attendee expressed concern that we’re layering issues, and that we need to “toss out issues that shouldn’t be part of this conversation.” Emma indicated that job descriptions should be thorough, adding that the professional interview team should not be forced to accept less than their first choice. An MFT rep said that artificial barriers are being put up by principals and interviewing teams so that they can get to the teachers they want, that it’s human nature to want who we know, but that it’s destructive and happens covertly. An Admin rep suggested that two issues are being identified simultaneously: The process of claiming a position is open and that talent is needed; and the process of finding the right fit for that position. He said the danger is that the system interviews are “geared to finding a pool of people who might fit,” but not to “finding the person who is the best fit.” He says this works neither for the Administration, nor for teachers. Someone across the room said, “Oh, I strongly disagree.” After 11:00am, the moderator advised the group that it was time to break for lunch and that the groups could caucus for part of their lunch hour. Together, the group decided that when they returned, they would:
Before break, an MFT rep stated that he believes that the fit a teacher selects is the “best fit,” that he believes that “for the most part,” teachers have the wisdom and knowledge base to accurately measure what will be the best fit for them.
|