Article #3>>>>> Contract Language Proposed by the Minneapolis Public Schools and the Response from the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers

Following up on its Summary of General Interests, the team negotiating for the Minneapolis Public Schools has offered proposed contract language meant to address the issues faced at High Priority Schools, dealing with those issues with greater flexibility and creativity.

The Minneapolis Federation of Teachers response to each of the parts in the Proposed Contract Language is given underneath the proposed language offered by the Minneapolis Public Schools:

Proposed Contract Language

Article XIX. HIGH PRIORITY SCHOOLS The Minneapolis Public Schools (MPS) and the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers (MFT) share a common goal in strengthening academic performance at schools identified by the district as “High Priority Schools.” For 2013-2014 these schools are listed in Appendix A.

The following commitments are effective July 1, 2013.

Section A. Time Teachers repeatedly expressed the need for more time to collaborate. Best practices in high performing, urban schools also demonstrate the need for structured, dedicated time for planning professional development and collaboration. Therefore:

a. Starting with the 2013-14 school year, teachers with any assignment at a High Priority School will participate in up to five (5) additional duty days or equivalent time for professional development/ collaboration beyond what is agreed to in the master CBA between MPS and MFT.

To this wording of the Proposed Contract Language, the MFT inserts “be required to” between “will” and “participate” in line two and at the end adds, “In addition, staff at all sites will have access to four (4) additional unencumbered preparation days in the 10 days before the first professional day. This is optional, not required, but is intended to provide teachers with the opportunity/ time to set up classrooms and prepare for the upcoming quarter, in advance of the official callback.” The MFT then creates a new part “b.” to read, “Teachers will be paid at their direct instruction rate of pay for the additional days--- whether required or optional.”

b. The specific schedule and topics to be addressed during the professional development/ collaboration days or extended times will be determined by each school’s Principal/ Administrator and Instructional Leadership Team after seeking input from the teaching staff. The school’s Associate Superintendent will have final approval of the plan.

This section is then lettered as “c” by the MFT, striking the words, “or extended times” from the second sentence, striking “Principal/ Administrator” from the second and third lines, and adding “collective” between “seeking” and “input” in the third line.

c. The District can also develop a plan for additional instructional time for students in all or some of the High Priority Schools. The District will work collaboratively with the MFT, teachers, parents, students, and community partners to review possible options that may include:

This section has then become “d,” with the entire first sentence deleted by the MFT, and with the remaining sentence altered to read as follows: “The District, MFT, teachers, parents, students and community partners will work collaboratively to review possible options for extended learning time that may include:”

i. Additional instructional days in the District school calendar approved by the Board of Education for 2013-14.

The MFT alters the wording of this point “i” and combines it with an altered point “ii” as follows: “Additional instruction time through after school extended enrichment learning opportunities.” I

i. Additional instructional time through extended learning options and a longer day.

iii. A summer school option at High Priority Schools that identifies specific students who would benefit from additional time and learning supports.

Having combined points “I” and “ii,” the MFT then presents this section as section “ii,” with modifications and additions as follows: “Required summer school option for all students in need of more learning time as recommended by the teachers and related services professionals in the schools. “Summer schools should continue to follow and expand on the experiential, applied learning model it currently uses. The summer slide for students is because they do not have access and opportunities to the same things that middle class and upper middle class students have--- camping, swimming, field trips to museums and outdoor destinations, hands on science lessons, community events, etc.”

iv. An alternative option developed by the parties that meets the objective of providing additional instruction, increasing student achievement and closing the achievement gap.

This section is presented by the MFT as section “iii,”with the following change of wording, “An alternative option developed by the parties that meets the objective of providing instruction, increasing student achievement and closing the opportunity gap such as wrap around services and community activities.”

d. Annually the District will designate sites and programs that will be added to the list of High Priority Schools contained in Appendix A based on changes in school performance. The District will notify MFT by November 1st of each year of any additions to the list.

The MFT alters section “d,” which has become section “e,”as follows: A team made up of MPS and MFT members will review sites and programs that may need additional support in the upcoming school year and determine the best actions to be taken.

e. Teachers at High Priority Schools who work additional days beyond the 196 day agreed to in the Collective Bargaining Agreement will need to sign a form stating that they understand that the extended time is not guaranteed in future years.

The MFT makes no change in this section, which has become section “f.”

Section B. Staffing

No excess placement may occur at a High Priority site unless the Principal/ Administrator agrees, or there is consensus of the Placement Committee, following an interview between the site and the teacher to maximize consent and best fit. This does not limit the discretion of the Superintendent or their designee to make final placement decisions even at a High Priority School.

The MFT strikes this entire paragraph, asserting that “The language of the current MOAs is clear and works just fine.” The MFT then substitutes its own introduction to “Staffing” as follows: “Staffing: No placement may occur at a High Priority School unless there is consensus of the Placement Committee, following an interview between the site and the teacher to maximize consent and best fit (as per the Streamlining Transfers Through Mutual Consent MOAs).

With the approval of Human Resources, a High Priority School will be able to have an extended early I & S session (i.e., open postings) to post specific positions internally and externally to fill directly into known vacancies without waiting until after Budget Tie-Out (BTO) and the later rounds of the I & S process.

The MFT strikes this entire paragraph, posing a question as follows: “QUESTION: How would we manage an expansion of the labor pool before BTO shows the specific needs? We propose to stay with what we have now. This proposal would potentially increase instability in staffing by increasing the numbers of teachers excessed within the system, which can be burdensome.”

Teachers accepting positions in a HPS wll make a three (3) year commitment to remain in the school to provide stability and continuity in the programming. The MFT leaves this sentence intact but alters the following paragraph. At the discretion of the Human Resources Department, hiring incentives may be used to remain competitive and compete for teachers with surrounding districts and schools. The district has the right to match offers, make competitive offers, provide hiring bonuses, and create retention bonuses in an effort to hire teachers in hard to fill license areas or programs.

The MFT strikes this entire paragraph, asserting the following: “This is very vague language. Perhaps looking at giving extra steps when a person is hired into a ‘hard to fill’ license area for a lane movement while on the job. If they leave this HTF position, they will return to the step or lane [at which] they would have been had they not been in a HTF position. (Toledo language…) All staff HPS and staff in hard-to-fill positions from non-hard-to-fill positions/ programs anywhere (based on shortages.) New hires or teachers who would change positions from non-hard-to-fill to hard-to-fill positions would get extra steps, currently employed teachers in those positions would also get the extra step move to honor their hard work, and to, hopefully, retain them.

In the event staff reductions are needed at a High Priority School due to changes in budget, a High Priority School will not be required to excess teachers in seniority order. Teachers who are excessed from a High Priority Schools or site due to a reduction in staffing shall participate in Open Postings and the Interview and Select interview and transfer process.

The MFT deletes this entire paragraph and proceeds to item “C.”

C.  Class Size Targets and Instructional Levels

The MFT makes an insertion here, as follows:

NOTE: This language was not honored this past year. We do not trust that it will be in the future. It feels like it is added to sweeten the MOA with no intent to actually make it happen.

To ensure students timely, meaningful attention and feedback as well as the ability to maintain a positive, productive student-centered classroom, the District and MFT commit to the lowest possible student to educator ratio. The District will work to target the following class sizes or instructor to student guides:

a. K-3 @ 21

b. Grades 4-5 @ 24: MPS will use minimal allocation dollars to address class size in order to ensure that K-3 numbers do not have a negative impact on the 4-5.

c. Grades 6-12: sites will determine class size. Sites may use their discretion to allocate their existing budget allocation to reduce class size.

The MFT lets the class sizes stand but adds a section “d” as follows:

d. Related services professionals will have caseloads per state recommendations and appropriate caseload support.

The district retains flexibility to meet exigencies, such as sibling preference, facility size, late enrollment, and other contingencies, as we make a “best effort” in meeting the targets. Where space for additional classes to reduce class size is not viable, the District will look to adjust staffing to accommodate and overall reduce instructor –to- student ratios.

The MFT strikes the entire first line of this paragraph and alters it to read as follows:

In order to meet the class size targets where space is not available, the District may look to adjust staffing to accommodate and overall reduce instructor-to-student ratios such as adding another teacher or ESP to the classroom.

Both parties realize that, if funding changes significantly year to year, the targets would have to be adjusted to be consistent with overall district funding, while still providing relatively lower class size targets for the High Priority Schools than the overall District targets for the same grade levels.

The MFT leaves this paragraph mostly intact, but removes the word, “targets,” in the first line, replacing it with the phrasing, “student to teacher ratio.” The MFT then adds a line, as follows: “Joint labor/ management negotiations would occur to adjust class size/ caseload as needed per changes in funding.”

MPS and MFT agree to monitor class size at Fall Staff Adjustments meetings. Representatives from MPS and MFT will meet no later than the third week in September each year to review data on actual class size numbers and discuss adjustments needed. This review will include Special Education and ELL class sizes and caseloads.

The MFT leaves the wording in this section intact but adds, “Need stronger language.” Section D. Evaluation MPS and MFT will regularly evaluate the success of this Article throughout its implementation.

The MFT leaves the wording in this section intact but adds, “[didn’t happen].”