Article #4>>>>> My Analysis of the Minneapolis Public Schools Contract Proposals and of the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers Response>>>>> Part One: Brief Overviews

Brief Overview of the Minneapolis Public Schools Summary of General Interest and the Response of the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers

In its Summary of General Interest, officials of the Minneapolis Public Schools seek to unify contract language that pertains to High Priority Schools and School Improvement Grant Schools, since these jointly pertain to schools facing elevated challenges in moving students to grade level performance in math and reading. They aim for flexibility in designating these schools and reforming the list on an annual basis, meaning that they should not be identified in the body of the contract, but rather placed in an appendix to the contract. The Summary aims for a great deal of site flexibility, with prime responsibility of site principals to make decisions that will move the mission of the schools forward in raising student academic performance and closing the achievement gap.

Thus, suitable authority is placed in principals’ hands to call for necessary professional development of teachers, add instruction time for those students who need highly intensified work on fundamental skills, hire excellent teachers and provide them with incentives to take on the inherent pedagogical challenge over the long haul. District officials vow to maintain class sizes as appropriate to actual, prevailing situations, and they commit themselves to ongoing evaluation of progress being made.

With regard to the Summary of General Interest, those formulating the response for the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers maintain that additional instructional time is already being provided after school, and that more emphasis on fundamental skills while sitting at a desk will result in students being bored and hating school. They claim that sites already have flexibility in hiring and retaining staff through the “Interview and Select” process. They say that they do not trust District commitment to maintaining proper class size, and they imply that regular assessment as to the effectiveness of approaches used at High Priority Schools will not, extrapolating from past experiences, be done.

Brief Overview of the Minneapolis Public Schools Proposed Contract Language and the Response of the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers

According to the Proposed Contract Language on temporal matters, officials of the Minneapolis Public Schools call for the addition of five (5) additional duty days (including equivalent time for professional development) at High Priority Schools, with flexibility as to how the time is to be used as decided by Principal/ Administrator and Instructional Leadership Team. As in the Summary of General Interest, the contract proposal calls for additional necessary instructional time, calendar days, and summer school as needed by particular students.

The contract proposal emphasizes the matter of ongoing assessment as to which sites should be labeled High Priority Schools. It calls for teachers at these schools to sign their agreement to work the extra days necessary to address the academic needs of students. As to staffing, the Proposed contract Language calls for enhanced authority for principals and District administrative personnel on matters pertinent to the hiring, rewarding, and retention of teachers, with the responsibility of teachers to make a three-year commitment to the High Priority School. There is a call for teacher quality and performance to trump seniority in times of budget cutting.

Those formulating the response of the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers place themselves firmly against all of the key innovations. They eliminate or alter language having to do with principal and administrative authority in hiring, rewarding, and retention of teachers; maintain that sites already choose whatever teachers they deem best; and defend the present multistage Interview and Select process hiring as fully adequate and appropriate.

Union responders characterize the proposed contract language as being too vague on the matter of incentives for teaching in High Priority Schools, asserting that rewards should be given through advances in position on steps and lanes in the current system of rewards for years of service and additional academic training. Those formulating the response for the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers acquiesce to the class size ratios proposed by District officials but seek greater specificity as to how these are to be achieved.