Q&A about the state of negotiations and the co-op dissolution

These are some of the questions we've received from our members, along with our answers. If you have others, post them in the comments section at the end or send them to lneanews@gmail.com.
Question: Does LNEA think the Co-op's dissolution is a good idea?
Answer:  LNEA knows that many of our out-of-district teachers have felt like the Ugly Duckling for a long time (please don't take offense, remember that he was really a lovely swan!).  What we mean by that is that there were many times when they did not get the same resources as the other teachers in their buildings, they answered to multiple supervisors from two (or more) different districts, they were not included in hiring for extra duties or extracurricular activity sponsorships, they were too far away or on a schedule that didn't make it feasible to be very involved in LNEA leadership or negotiations.  LNEA has done its best to represent them as effectively as it could, but those teachers are positioned in 6 districts, all with different calendars, working conditions, lengths of duty days and years, and problems, so it hasn't been easy.  If the dissolution of the co-op makes special education teachers across Leavenworth County feel like a more integral part of their schools and communities, that is probably best for the special education students in the county. 
Question:  Now that mediation has been tried, what is the next step to resolve the negotiations between the teachers and the board of education?
Answer:  The next step is a fact-finding board.  They meet with both parties and have the power to examine witnesses and documents and to issue subpoenas.  On the basis of their inquiries, investigations and hearings, they would make recommendations for resolving the impasse.  Their recommendation is not binding on either the board or LNEA.
Question:  What has been offered to the teachers during negotiations?
Answer:  What has been offered so far is lateral movement and longevity pay for those who have earned them, plus $500 for each teacher who was with the district in 2012-13.  An additional $85 per month for health insurance has been offered, but that won't begin until 2014-15, if an agreement is ratified.
For those interested in the total cost, the amounts offered are split into special ed and non-sped, because it is the special ed cost that is the sticking point.

This is the district's cost for its proposed increases for 2013-14.

	Special ed	Non-SpEd
Lateral movement	$5,003	$18,863
Longevity	$3,900	$2,200
$500 per returning teacher	175x$500  =  $87,500	208x$500 = $104,000
Total before payroll tax	$96,403	$125,063

Question: How much MORE money is needed to provide the step increase?

Answer:  LNEA calculates the cost of movement for the entire year on the current schedule as $108,275 for special ed and $123,235 for regular ed.  This is the difference in the cost of the returning teachers after movement on the current salary schedule and the cost of the returning teachers before movement.  It does not compare the cost of paying teachers to last year’s cost of paying teachers.  It was based on the numbers of returning teachers at each step and level provided by the district last summer. 

Question: Is there a difference of opinion as to how much more money that step increase will cost? 

Answer:  There was a difference of opinion, but we believe that may have been resolved as of 2/10/14.

The initial estimate the district gave us calculated the cost of special ed movement quite differently than we did, by comparing last year’s cost of teachers to this year’s cost of teachers, so their calculation included the cost of paying new teachers.

Our calculation did not include the cost of paying new teachers.  We assumed that increased cost was already budgeted for.  Some background: Two years ago we made it easier for the district to hire teachers by renumbering the salary schedule so that, starting in fall 2013, a newly hired teacher with 6 years experience can be paid on the 6^th row of the salary schedule instead of the 1^st (which was labeled 6 before).  This was a recommended first step in compacting the salary schedule to make it easier for the district to keep salaries competitive, and we believe it would be in the best interest of the profession to leave that in place.  However, though it made hiring easier, this change raised the cost of new teachers more than we anticipated.  That will have to be adjusted for in the future, as we cannot allow an increased cost for newly hired teachers to prevent salary schedule movement for all teachers.  That would be blatantly unfair.  However, that is not the reason for this year's problems. Even at the cost we calculated, the SAB is not willing to fund movement on the schedule for our teachers who are paid by the Special Education Cooperative budget.
Question:  Why won't the other districts in the Co-op allow USD453 to give a step increase for SpEd teachers?
Answer:  The other districts' contributions to the Co-op rose considerably this year already, and  they don’t want to contribute even more. Remarks on this from Basehor’s superintendent are quoted at the end of this article in the Basehor newspaper: http://www.basehorinfo.com/news/2014/jan/16/basehor-linwood-votes-dissolve-leavenworth-special/. 
On a side note: LNEA did some calculations when we started the negotiations process. We noted that from over the first 3 years of the Co-op's reorganization (using expenditures given in the co-op budget and district assessments provided by USD453), special education expenditures rose 20% and federal aid dropped 33%, but the assessments paid by the districts rose less than 5%.  Those districts would seem to have gotten an awfully good deal over that period of time, while the balance in the co-op account got lower and lower. 

We speculate that another reason the SAB does not want step movement for sped teachers is that it will raise the price they will pay to hire those teachers away from USD453 during the dissolution.  This is why they are apparently insisting on a “one-time” payment rather than step movement for the teachers paid by the Co-op budget.

What the SAB are willing to do might change once they know the state’s decision, but it might not, since their ability to hire the teachers they need could still be affected by a raise that continues into next year. It is possible teachers in another sped zone might decide to stay with USD453 instead of accepting the offer of the other district.