2018-2019 SDPBC/CTA Collective Bargaining Agreement Negotiations Update
This email update is meant to give you a brief summary of the responses from each side, to one another's proposals. You will find the response summaries
BOLDED AND UNDERLINED IN RED IF THERE WAS DISAGREEMENT BY EITHER PARTY.
ITEMS BOLDED AND UNDERLINED IN GREEN MEAN THERE IS AGREEMENT BETWEEN BOTH PARTIES.
ITEMS BOLDED AND UNDERLINED IN BLUE INDICATE A COUNTER PROPOSAL THAT HAS NOT BEEN AGREED TO.
If you would like to review the existing CBA between the SDPBC/CTA, use the following web address:
https://www.palmbeachschools.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_270532/File/Careers/Labor%20Relations/CTA-July-2017-June-2020-CBA-Successor.pdf
SDPBC Proposals
1.
Article II, Section F – Employee Authority and Protection
- SDPBC has proposed changing language in this section from “assault” to “battery”, from “injury” to “serious physical injury”, from “physically assaulted” to “seriously injured as a result of battery”, under the premise that the changes in terminology carry different legal implications and they prefer the proposed language over the existing language.
- CTA has responded by indicating that the changes proposed would decrease protections for teachers, specifically in response to threats made by students. CTA has rejected this language as unacceptable.
2.
Article II, Section G – Employee Evaluation
- SDPBC has proposed eliminating most language relating to T-bargaining unit member evaluations from the CBA based on the premise that “The evaluation instruments and procedures are contained in a separate document entitled the Classroom Teacher Evaluation System (“CTES”) Handbook. The CTES Handbook outlines the process for the improvement of instruction as well as the review and assessment of the annual performance of an employee. The CTES Handbook is hereby incorporated into and made a part of this contract. The CTES Handbook shall be available online to all employees.”
- SDPBC has proposed language establishing strict time-frames for an employee to file a grievance when a procedural error has occurred during the administration of an employee evaluation.
- SDPBC has proposed changes to Joint Evaluation Negotiation Committee (JENC) procedures that would establish an accelerated process of mediation and impasse, if both parties fail to reach consensus.
- CTA believes that the current language in the CBA needs to be updated to sync with any changes negotiated by the JENC Committee and that the removal of language from our contract regarding evaluations is unnecessary and counter to the past practice of updating the CBA to synchronize with the Classroom Teacher Evaluation System (CTES) document that is negotiated in JENC.
3.
Article II, Section Q – ESE Employees, Physical Restraint Procedures
- SDPBC has proposed changes to the language in this section of the contract pertaining to physical restraint procedures under the premise that it contains language that is inconsistent with current state statutory language and legally permissible restraint procedures.
- CTA has requested time for further review to ensure that the proposed changes to specific restraint procedures are in fact in accordance with current state statute language. Additionally, CTA has rejected the idea of removing additional language that primarily pertains to the manner in which the SDPBC must provide training to ensure employees who may utilize restraint techniques are trained.
4.
Article IV, Section C – Voluntary Transfer Period
- SDPBC has proposed changes that will expand voluntary transfer eligibility to teachers in their second and third year of employment with the District, under specific conditions. In addition to already existing language that states, “the applying teacher is in at least his/her third year of employment with the District”, the District has proposed adding “or has completed probation at the time of the transfer and is transferring into a high needs school, as defined by the District each December, from a non-high needs school”.
- CTA does not oppose language allowing employees transferring to "high needs" schools from non-high needs schools prior to the completion of their third year of employment. CTA has countered with a request that any teacher at a "non-high needs school" may be able to voluntary transfer after their second year (a reduction from the current language requiring three years before such a transfer) to a different non-high needs school. CTA also has requested to be involved in the process of defining the criteria for what a "high needs school" is.
5.
Appendix B – Supplements
SDPBC has proposed the following changes to the existing supplement list:
- Increase the number of “School Psychology Intern Supervisor” positions in the District from one to three
- Create and provide supplements to “Academic Coach” positions at all school levels. Proposed language states, “The District may select regular classroom teachers to provide professional development to other classroom teachers in high needs schools, as defined by the District, in December of the prior year. $2,500 per year to Academic Coaches who lead at least three(3) professional development sessions at his/her location; provide ten(10) opportunities for other teachers to watch modeled instruction; and supply no fewer than five(5) comprehensive lesson plans to other teachers. $5,000 per year to Academic Coaches who lead at least six(6) professional development sessions at his/her location; provide fifteen(15) opportunities for other teachers to watch modeled instruction; and supply no fewer than ten(10) comprehensive lesson plans to other teachers.”
- CTA does not object to the creation of additional School Psychology Intern Supervisory positions.
- CTA has requested to have input in developing a criteria to define what a "high needs school" is.
6.
Appendix M – Extended Instructional Day
- The SDPBC has proposed changes to existing contract language as it pertains to extended day schools (as designated by the DOE) under the premise that the proposed language changes in the contract will allow the existing agreement to perpetuate itself without the need for re-signing a new memorandum of understanding (MOU) each school year.
- CTA has agreed to the changes proposed by the SDPBC to incorporate the Extended Instructional Day language into the contract so that it does not need to be renegotiated on an annual basis to update dates and basic housekeeping language.
7.
Salary – SDPBC initial salary proposal is as follows:
- Highly Effective (including COLA) = 2.26%
- Effective (including COLA) = 1.82%
- Developing/Needs Improvement (COLA only) = 0.50%
- New FY18-19 (Cola only) = 0.50%
- CTA has countered with the following salary proposal:
- Highly Effective (including COLA) - 3.50%
- Effective (including COLA) - 2.75%
- Developing/Needs Improvement (COLA only) = 0.50%
- New FY18-19 (COLA only) = 0.50%
The SDPBC has indicated they will respond to this salary proposal at the next negotiation session.
CTA Proposals
1.
Article 2, Section O – Children of Employees
CTA has proposed the following contract language changes regarding children of employees:
- In addition to existing language that permits the children of an employee to enroll at the school-site of their parent, children of employees shall also be allowed to enroll in a school that will feed into and/or a school that will receive students from the school-site of their parent.
- Increase the District After-School Child Care Program employee discount from 25% to 100%.
- SDPBC has rejected and CTA awaits a counter-proposal regarding the increase in employee discount for after-school childcare. SDPBC has indicated any cost associated with increasing the discount would be subtracted out of available funds for teacher raises.
- SDPBC has indicated they are agreeable to some version of language that allows for students of teachers at a particular school site having their children attend feeder and receiver schools in the same geographical tack. CTA awaits specific counter-proposal language.
2.
Article 4, Section B – Posting and Filing Vacancies
- CTA has proposed that all T-bargaining unit vacancies at a school-site shall be emailed to the school’s faculty at the same time the vacancy is posted on the school district’s website.
- SDPBC has stated they will review this proposal further and respond at a later session.
3.
Article 8, Section B – Experience for Salary Defined
- CTA has proposed that retirees who are re-hired by the SDPBC shall be paid a salary equal to Step 17 (a change from the current Step 7 placement) on the Salary Placement Scale. Additionally, no retired teacher who is currently employed in the District shall make less than $50,900 (a change from the current $46,200 retiree re-hire starting salary).
- SDPBC has rejected an increase in the pay rate of re-hired retired teachers, but has indicated that for the purpose of the referendum monies, all years of experience will be accepted. This will allow re-hired retirees to receive the full $10k per year supplement from the referendum.
4.
Article 8, Section N – Mandatory In-Service
- CTA has proposed that one-half of each Professional Development Day (PDD) on the District calendar shall be reserved for teachers to complete their annual, mandatory in-service requirements.
- SDPBC has agreed to conduct a full review of all mandatory PD currently in existence, within 60 days of the conclusion of negotiations.
- SDPBC has initially rejected the earmarking of time during PDD days for independent training time for teachers to complete mandatory in-service, pending the results of the agreed upon PD review period.
- Pending review, the SDPBC may be agreeable to earmarking some unspecified amount of time for independent mandatory in-service PD training.
5.
Appendix B – Supplements
- CTA has proposed the creation of a “Certified ESE Teacher” supplement for employees with the following job codes: 52700, 52750, 52800, 52950, 53010, 53050, 53100, 53150, 53200, 53250, 53300, 53350, 53950, 54000, 54050, 54100, 54150 in the amount of $1,000, annually.
- SDPBC has rejected this proposal and stated any such agreement would require monies to come directly out of possible salary increases for all teachers.
6.
Appendix D – Additional Period Supplement
- CTA has proposed increasing the rate for the sixth period supplement from $25 to $45 per period.
- SDPBC has rejected this proposal and stated any such agreement would require monies to come directly out of possible salary increases for all teachers.
7. Salary
- CTA has countered with the following salary proposal:
- Highly Effective (including COLA) - 3.50%
- Effective (including COLA) - 2.75%
- Developing/Needs Improvement (COLA only) = 0.50%
- New FY18-19 (COLA only) = 0.50%
The SDPBC has indicated they will respond to this salary proposal at the next negotiation session.
.
