Settlement reached

Changes to the negotiated agreement between Leavenworth-National Education Association and USD #453 Board of Education have been agreed to tentatively, pending ratification votes by both parties. An email has been sent to all teachers using the list provided by the district, to ask them to vote on these proposed changes, regardless of membership in LNEA/KNEA/NEA.

A draft of the new document is available here.

Below is a summary of the changes made to the negotiated agreement for the 2009-10 school year. The letters and numbers appearing in brackets in the synopsis below will direct you to the appropriate section of the negotiated agreement so that you may read in more detail, if you so choose. For example, {6E1a} refers to Article 6, Duty Day, Section E, subsection 1, subsection a.

Article 6, Duty Day

**Increase in elementary planning time from 250 to 280 minutes per week {6E1a}
**High school teachers can be required to teach 6 periods instead of 5 (removal of the stipend for a sixth period from the supplemental pay scale) beginning 10-11 school year {6F1b}**Protection of planning time from formal collaboration time, PLCs and the like {6E}
**Equitable distribution of work load {6F}
**Change in language regarding service on a district-wide committee {6B2}

Article 7, Paid Extra Duty

Removed exclusion of middle school and elementary teachers from receiving extra pay for activities such as dances and sports events; added stipulation that pay is available only for activities that occur outside the contract day

Article 23, Lateral Movement

**lateral movement on the salary schedule is granted for the 09-10 contract year
**lateral movement granted for revised list of activities occurring on contract time {2}**deadlines for lateral movement application and paperwork changed. A summary of the entire timeline is below:- written request submitted no later than June 1- transcripts submitted no later than September 1- increase in pay occurs with September paycheck instead of October paycheck- failure to apply by June 1 and provide transcripts by Sept 1 result in a one-year delay of pay increase
**mid-year movement on salary schedule is for degree only movement – written requests due December 1, degree must be completed prior to January 1.

Article 24, Vertical Movement

Step movement (credit for a year’s experience) granted as per salary schedule for the 09-10 contract year

Article 26, Salary

**payment for elementary music productions placed on supplemental scale, rate - .04
**no increase in base pay on the salary scheduleArticle 27, Fringe Benefits
**no increase in health benefits for the 09-10 contract year
**changes in language to reflect current terminology and legislation

Article 30, Calendar

**work days preserved for both contract years listed below:
1.5 days in August
1 day at end of 1st, 2nd and 3rd quarters
a minimum of .5 day at end of year

09-10 non-working days:
Sept 7 – Labor Day
Nov 11 – Veterans’ Day
Nov 25-27 – Thanksgiving
Dec 19 – Jan 3 – Winter Break
(Jan 4 work day)
Jan 18 – MLK
Feb 15 – Presidents’ Day
March 15-19 – Spring Break
April 2 – Good Friday
April 28 – off unless needed for makeup
May 31 – Memorial Day

10-11 non-working days:
Sept 6 – Labor Day
Nov 11 – Veterans’ Day
Nov 24-26 – Thanksgiving
Dec 23-31 – Winter Break
(Dec 22 work day)
Jan 17 – MLK
Feb 14 – Presidents’ Day
March 14-18 – Spring Break
Good Friday will NOT be a holiday
April 25 – off unless needed
May 30 – Memorial Day

Article 31, Evaluation

**requirement of timely verbal and written feedback on visitations and formal observations {E, G}
**teacher’s written response to written evaluation must be signed and dated by administrator {F}
**orientation process must include a written and oral explanation of all processes and timelines {I}
**change in configuration of required visits by administration to a teacher’s classroom {F}
**counselors’ evaluation tool added to appendix – becomes part of the negotiated agreement by reference along with librarians’ evaluation tool (teachers’ evaluation tool is also appendicized by reference)

Article 33, Early Retirement

**early retirement available during the contract year for health/personal reasons if teacher meets eligibility requirements (initial paragraph)
**program benefits changed from 15% of latest salary to a flat rate of $8,000 per year for maximum of 5 years, and health benefit changed from whatever benefit teacher took during the last year of employment to a flat rate of $350 per month until eligible for Medicare {C 3 & 4}
** entire early retirement benefit ends June 30, 2030. Those who have entered into the program before this date will continue to receive the benefits as per contract. {D7}
**title change and language changes to reflect current legal terminology

Appendix – Tax Sheltered Annuity
**language changed to reflect regulator changes regarding a third-party administrator

Note: All certified personnel on a teaching contract in USD 453 are part of the bargaining unit and have a vote in this ratification. If you have opted out of Survey Monkey surveys from us, you might not have received the ratification email. Contact Ginger Riddle if that applies to you and you wish to vote.

August 5 Negotiations Summary and FAQs

LNEA’s negotiating team met with the board’s team at 7pm on Wednesday, August 5. LNEA began the meeting with a presentation of a counter-proposal to the board’s last offer. A packet containing the proposal in detail was distributed, and an oral presentation began. Less than 5 minutes in to the oral presentation, Mr. Chapman, who was visibly distracted, called a caucus, and when the board’s team returned, Mr. Chapman announced that LNEA’s proposal did not contain the provisions the board was looking for and that he was unwilling to discuss the matter further. We pointed out that several issues in the packet we had handed to him needed some adjustments as well as some explanation. We asked him to be patient and allow us to finish our presentation, so that we could explain each item as we progressed through the packet. In that presentation, we acknowledged the board’s willingness to grant movement on the salary schedule, but continued to ask for an increase in the health benefit, acknowledged the board’s willingness to increase elementary planning time to 280 minutes per week, and conceded to the board’s request that beginning the 10-11 school year, high school teachers be required to teach 6 classes instead of 5. After our presentation was complete, and after a second caucus called by Mr. Chapman, he announced that they believed we would be unable to come to an agreement and the board would be filing impasse papers. He declared that LNEA was welcome to make a joint filing, but if not, the board would be filing it without our signature.

Linda Schukman stated that LNEA does not agree with him, and that the teacher team strongly feels more talks could be productive. After an LNEA caucus, another counter-proposal was presented that conceded to the financial segment of the board’s proposal. The board currently has an offer on the table that includes lateral and vertical movement on the salary schedule, but includes no other financial increases – no increase on the base pay, no increase in health benefits, no increase in the $1350 embedded remuneration.

LNEA shifted focus to issues still on the table that will exhibit respect for teachers and their time as a finite resource. LNEA is still asking for protection of planning time (language that would exclude PLC time or other organized collaborative efforts), so that the very important job of planning for class, calling parents, grading assignments, etc., is not totally pushed into teachers’ personal time. PLCs of course are very valuable, but LNEA does not believe those meetings should supplant the scant time available to teachers during the day to tend to planning needs. We are also still asking that on the days we teach all day and then must be available for parent conferences that afternoon and evening, a short period of time be provided for teachers to have a quick break to attend to their families’ needs before beginning a long evening of conferences. Further, in the light of LNEA having tentatively agreed to increasing high school teachers’ load by 20% (teaching 6 classes instead of 5 beginning the 10-11 school year), we insist that the increased load be assigned in a fair and equitable manner. This is a measure that is important in curtailing the preferential treatment that has been exhibited in the past.

The two teams are scheduled to meet again Tuesday, August 11, 5 pm at the board office. If you are interested in any of these issues, we highly recommend you attend this meeting to support your team as they determine how to react to the board’s counter-proposal. The meeting will last no longer than 2 hours, as team members have other obligations.

Below are some FAQs. If you have questions concerning the issues currently on the table or about the information below, please e-mail us at lneanews@gmail.com.

School is starting, and we haven’t settled. How is that handled? Our August paycheck is the last payment under the 08-09 negotiated agreement. But our contract, of course, covers more than simply the rate of pay. The continuing contract law dictates that work will continue under the previously negotiated agreement – all articles in that agreement will be in full force, including salary, until another contract is ratified. (Supplemental contracts – coaching and activities – are not subject to the continuing contract law.)

What will LNEA do if talks break down? Your team will do everything professionally possible to avoid a total breakdown. (You have seen your team choose this avenue before – we publicly insisted that we were willing to settle, even though the board refused to engage in meaningful negotiations.) We firmly believe that the best possible solution to negotiations lies in the two teams working collaboratively to reach an agreement. Generally, involvement of outside parties muddies the waters and causes polarization. If all our efforts to resume talks fail, we will reluctantly begin the impasse procedure.

How are supplemental contracts affected if we haven’t settled on terms for a primary contract before schools starts? All supplemental contracts – anything listed on our supplemental pay scale – function ONLY for the period of one school year. Coaches/sponsors are not guaranteed continuing employment for those activities the same way teaching positions are guaranteed. If a teacher has not signed a supplemental contract for the upcoming school year, he/she has no obligation to fulfill those duties. Once a supplemental contract is signed for the current or upcoming school year, it functions just like any other contract – the teacher is required by contract law to fulfill the duties set forth, or surrender the pay for those duties.

What is the impact of high school staff teaching 6 classes instead of 5? Because the negotiated agreement requires a minimum amount of planning time per day, assignment of 6 classes to a teacher requires a seven period day at the high school. Therefore, block scheduling, even in the modified form it is being used in the current school year, will be a thing of the past. This is a much more efficient use of staff, and will allow for further staff cuts at the high school. If staff is not reduced, the total student load could be spread over 6 periods instead of 5 and each class of course would be smaller. In these economic times, however, it is highly unlikely that the board would pass up the opportunity to further reduce staff. Further, the opportunity to assign staff to support and supervision duties would either be eliminated or drastically reduced. In an effort to alleviate opportunities to treat teachers unfairly, LNEA is insisting that if and when this teaching load is increased, that load be equitably and fairly distributed.

What is impasse? Impasse is a declaration that further discussions between the two teams is probably not going to be productive. In the vast majority of cases, the opposing teams file impasse papers jointly. LNEA’s team feels strongly that collaborative efforts to reach an agreement result in a far more positive climate compared to the polarizing effect of impasse. Some school districts continue to try to reach an agreement, while others simply stop all talks and wait for KDHR to assign a mediator. Several negotiators on your team have solid experience with impasse and mediation.

What is mediation? Once impasse has been filed (usually jointly), a request for the services of a mediator is submitted to Kansas Department of Human Resources. There can be a long waiting period before a mediator becomes available. When mediation begins, it is often in marathon form. The opposing teams are positioned in separate rooms, and the mediator acts as a liaison, literally moving between the two rooms, trying to convince each side to make concessions in order to reach an agreement. Several members of your team have experienced this process and we believe that while sometimes it results in an agreement, it always causes polarization. The backlash of those kinds of hard feelings and resentment – from both sides of the table – seeps into the day-to-day operations of the school district, and makes everyone’s jobs much more difficult than necessary. It is important to note that while a joint declaration of impasse is not necessary, it is certainly necessary for both parties to willingly engage in mediation. If one side or the other believes that the intervention of a mediator is not necessary, mediation will not take place. That being said, good-faith bargaining must occur, or a prohibited practice lawsuit could be filed.

What happens after mediation? If mediation is a success, a new negotiated agreement of course, is presented for ratification. If both parties agree to engage in mediation but the process fails, there are two options: The parties can agree to administer the previous negotiated agreement (by continuing contract law) for the school year, or they can move to the fact-finding stage.

What is fact-finding? This is a long process, and is much like a formal hearing in a court of law. Each team prepares evidence supporting their arguments, a hearing officer is assigned, and the cases are presented. After a period of deliberation, the hearing officer rules, but by law those findings are not binding on a school board. It obviously is a political death knell for school boards to refuse to honor these findings, but there have been school boards in Kansas who have exhibited that arrogance.

What happens if a school board ignores the recommendations of the fact-finder? Current statute allows a school board to issue unilateral contracts only after mediation and fact-finding have failed. If a board so chooses, at this point they are free to issue unilateral contracts – that is, a contract that has been drafted without the collaboration of both parties.

What happens if unilateral contracts are issued? If the board chooses to issue a unilateral contract, each teacher who has previously worked for the district has the right to choose which contract he/she would rather work under – the unilaterally designed conditions set forth by the board, or the previous contract that was negotiated by both parties. In other districts where unilateral contracts have been offered, there is almost always a financial “carrot,” but certain other provisions, usually those that protect teachers’ rights, are removed. The teachers’ association, having not agreed to those terms during formal negotiations, of course will recommend that teachers work under the continuing contract law, without benefit of the financial “carrot” so that the rights are preserved. Teachers new to the district for that particular year would have no choice but to sign the unilateral contract, because they aren’t covered by “continuing contract.” This results in administrators being forced to run the district under two sets of rules – hardly a situation that is conducive to focusing on “what’s best for kids,” and hardly healthy public relations. Obviously nearly always this causes irreparable damage to work relations as well as to the community as a whole. It is clearly not a wise choice for school boards if they have any concern about the well-being of the community.

July 23 negotiations summary

Greetings, teachers! Your negotiations team met with the Board's representatives at 9 a.m., 1 p.m., and 7 p.m. yesterday to present proposals and counterproposals. A summary of the movement on each article is available at this link. Here are the highlights that we think are the biggest concerns for teachers:

The board has finally agreed to both vertical and lateral movement on the salary schedule, but only if high school teachers teach 6 classes instead of 5 beginning in 2010-11. They have yet to agree to a raise in the base salary or embedded compensation, but LNEA's final offer of the day (the blue light special) included the 6 periods the BOE wants so badly in return for movement and an additional $200 embedded.

We also continue to insist that there be no sunset date on early retirement, some time off between school and conferences, and some compensation for teachers who have to move their classrooms (additional leave days, although this excludes some moves for high school teachers during the construction period).

Again, for details, see the last column of the chart at this website: July 23 negotiations summary.

The next meetings have been scheduled for Tuesday, July 28, 7 p.m. at Lawson, and (if needed) Wednesday, August 5, 7 p.m. at the board office.

July 6 Negotiations Report

Greetings Teachers! With the 4^th of July holiday behind us, your LNEA team met with the board’s negotiating team at 9 a.m. on Monday, July 6. The meeting was short, as the board offered very few changes from the proposals they’ve presented in the past. We are extremely disappointed to see no discussion of any kind of fiscal increase for teachers, even though we are expected to implement new programs, learn new software programs, implement new textbook adoptions, reduce our classroom supplies and resources, and absorb the student load of the 30 staff that were cut last spring. While a certain percentage of the cuts came about because of the combination of elementary and middle school attendance centers, we all know that we still will face appreciably larger student loads in most cases.

For specific information regarding initial proposals and counter-proposals for the items that were opened for negotiations, check the June 22 summary. There have been a few minor changes by the board since then, but nothing appreciable.

Our session on July 6 lasted a total of 90 minutes. The board’s team opened the talks by presenting a package that was painfully similar to the last package they presented to us, then apparently expected LNEA to make more concessions. Rather than presenting a counter-proposal, we asked some pointed questions about certain issues, and then set another date. We will meet again at 9am on Thursday, July 23. This meeting will be held in the library at Lawson Elementary.

The board has still made no movement on most major issues:

** no increase on the salary schedule

** no increase in the embedded cash remuneration (currently $1350)

** no increase in the health benefit

** no vertical movement on the salary schedule for the 09-10 school year

** no lateral movement on the salary schedule for the 09-10 school year

** major reductions in the benefits provided in the early retirement program, with a date of 2015 to do away with the program all together

The board’s current proposal includes an increase in elementary planning time to 280 minutes per week, but they will not entertain the idea of increasing the minimum blocks of time from 20 minutes. Further, they have held this benefit for elementary teachers hostage by linking it to a demand that high school teachers increase their student load by 20%. Just for your information, minimum high school planning time stands at 215 minutes per week, and middle school teachers are guaranteed only 200 minutes per week.

We especially fear that a teacher who has borrowed money to complete a master’s degree will be facing repayment of loans, an increase in health insurance premiums, increased property taxes in return for supporting the bond issue, with no increase in income anywhere in sight. In the face of these dire circumstances, we encouraged the board’s team to get creative in looking for ways to provide at least a little financial relief for teachers – especially for those who in good faith have invested money in additional credit hours or an advanced degree, expecting lateral movement on the pay scale in return.

Of the districts that have settled on terms of a negotiated agreement for the 09-10 school year, we know of only one that has agreed to a pay freeze. Many districts have been unable to add any money to their base salary, but several of those have agreed to vertical and lateral movement on the salary schedule, or lateral movement only. Of those districts, however, the vast majority has not eliminated any teaching positions. A few have actually added teachers. Many districts have yet to settle, but some of those have chosen to cut high-dollar administrative positions rather than teaching positions.

We also questioned, in the face of cutting 30 teaching positions district wide, why the district would currently be advertising to fill the following positions:

** Title I ARRA Reading Coach

** Title I ARRA Mathematics Coach

** Coordinator of Secondary Literacy

** Coordinator of Elementary Literacy

** At-Risk Reading Interventionist

** At-Risk Mathematics Interventionist

(Please also be aware that the district already employs an assistant superintendent in charge of curriculum, a director of elementary curriculum, and has recently hired a director of secondary curriculum.)

The terms “interventionist” and “coach” imply that these people will be working with students, but upon reading the job descriptions that have been presented to the board for approval, we find that qualification requirements are lax, and the duties described for each of these positions are largely if not completely administrative.

While central office administration’s comment was that these positions involve stimulus money, and “it is mandated,” we never got a clear answer regarding exactly what the details of the mandate are. We know that at least one neighboring district is using its stimulus money to fund summer school programs designed specifically for students who didn’t score high enough on the state exams. When we suggested that current administrators’ job descriptions might be altered to include some of the duties of these six positions, and the stimulus money could be used to fund that portion of their salaries, thus freeing an equivalent number of dollars in the general fund that can be used to positively influence the student:teacher ratio, we received no reply. We have asked what specific research shows hiring more administrative help will improve students’ test performance.

In anticipation of this financial crisis, the board directed central office staff to come up with a plan. It was presented to the board at the February 11, 2009, meeting, and consisted of four tiers. The first tier went into effect immediately. It involved suspension of hiring and reduction of select spending, including building budgets. The second tier has since been instituted, and involved suspension of some course adoptions at the high school, reorganization of the delivery of the alternative school, staff cuts for non federally-funded certified and classified positions, and cuts in administration. (Although a few administrative positions have indeed been cut over the last 2-3 years, and while the people filling the positions listed above will apparently be on a teacher’s contract plus 10 days, based on job descriptions, it is our belief these people are being hired to assist in administrative duties rather than for the purpose of helping students 100% of their time.) The third tier involved further cuts to classified and certified staff, and reduction of select programs not directly related to graduation. The fourth and final tier, the majority of which is yet to be implemented as far as we can tell, involves cuts to athletic teams, a suspension of field trips, increased textbook and athletic fees, and a reduced work week.

Please contact board members and members of the community to express your concern regarding this situation. Teachers cannot be expected to bear the brunt of this fiscal crisis when there are other options.