Collective Bargaining Process in P-12 Education - Research Paper Example

? Collective Bargaining Process in P-12 Education Your School of ____________ Number and of March 8, 2011 Abstract This is a review of the process of Collective Bargaining Agreements in Pre-Kinder through Grade 12 Education or P-12 in relation to the Collective Bargaining Agreements and the New Comprehensive Teacher and Principal Evaluation Law (Education Law Section 3012-c, as added by Chapter 103 of the Laws of 2010). It also aims to discuss the direct relationship of the new law to the concurrent provisions contained in the previous collective bargaining agreements. This paper will also present the duties and responsibilities of the Board of Cooperative Educational Services or the BOCES, and the school district in compliance with the directives of the new law. It endeavours to show the value and efficacy of the purpose for which the new law was created. Keywords: collective bargaining, collective bargaining process, collective bargaining agreements, Pre-kinder to Grade 12, new comprehensive teacher and principal evaluation law, Education Law Collective Bargaining Process in P-12 Education A new law popularly known as Chapter 103 of the Laws of 2010 was signed by New York Governor David Paterson last year. One of the significant features of this new law is the process of evaluation procedures to be implemented among teachers and principals within the scope of jurisdiction of the law. The law has been changed as a measure to discipline teachers who are enjoying security of tenure. The changes are expected to be implemented and shall commence on July 1, 2010, and will be carried out for the next succeeding years. The revisions made on the law will have important implications for collective bargaining between school districts and the unions representing teachers and principals. Due to the enactment of the new law, it mandated that all collective bargaining agreements entered by teachers and building principals after July 1, 2010 must be harmonize and complement with provisions of the new law. The law further adds that any conflicting provisions arising from collective bargaining agreements which took effect on July 1, 2010 shall remain valid and subsisting, unless otherwise revoked by a successor agreement. Significant Changes in Education Law Section 3012-c The revamp of the old law carried with it major changes in the evaluation process of teachers and principals, known as the new and improved Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR) system for teachers and principals. “The new APPR system applies only to evaluations of teachers in the common branch subjects or English Language Arts, and Math in grades four through eight, as well as building principals for the school year 2011-2012. The new APPR system will apply to all teachers and principals effective in the 2012-2013 school years. The APPR system requires teacher and principal evaluations to result in a single composite score made up of the several components” (New York Labor and Employment). The composite score shall be the basis for the teacher’s promotion, retention, tenure, termination, and will entitle the teacher to additional compensation. The composite score shall be divided into the following criteria: The first 40% percent shall be based on the student’s achievement and the other 60% shall comprise of the teacher’s overall effectiveness. Modification of the Existing Provisions of Collective Bargaining Agreement Based on the labor relations standpoint, the requirement of a negotiated appeals process is one of the more contentious aspects of the new law. The appeals process by the way, is developed locally, wherein the teacher or principal shall have the right to question the basis of the evaluation. The factors taken in deriving at such result must be compliant to specific standards and guidelines for reviews and implementation of a “Teacher Improvement Plans” (TIP) and the “Principal Improvement Plans” (PIP). This method will be used for those teachers and principals who receive ratings of either “developing” or “ineffective”. Furthermore, the evaluations conducted based on the new law cannot even be used as evidence during a disciplinary proceeding under Section 3020-a of the Education Law before the termination of the appeals process. In cases where in a tenured teacher is being challenged for a pattern of ineffective teaching or performance, it is the responsibility of the district school to establish that it has negotiated and agreed to a TIP or a PIP, in which case shall be made applicable to that specific teacher. “The new law likewise establishes an expedited Section 3020-a disciplinary process for teachers and principals charged with demonstrating a pattern of ineffective teaching or performance. The expedited process requires completion of the hearing before a single hearing officer within sixty (60) days of the pre-hearing conference” (New York Labor and Employment). There are instances when there are still existing Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBA) which remain effective for another three (3) years or more. The issue presented before us now is, “How do we synchronize the existing provisions of the CBA with the new law?” “The law is simple and clear. The new law specifically empowers the districts, BOCES and their collective bargaining agents to re-negotiate the evaluation provisions in their collective bargaining agreements at any given time they please” (NYSED.gov). Well-settled is the principle under the new that both the school district or BOCES or the teachers or principals union to which they belong, can renege on their existing collective bargaining agreements, without committing any violation. Their respective unions are permitted to enter and bargain into new covenants outside of the bounds of their existing collective bargaining agreements to re-negotiate their evaluation process, provided however that the terms and conditions are compliant with the provisions of Education Law Section 3012-c. “The Department strongly encourages parties with ongoing contracts to consider renegotiating any inconsistent provisions in their agreements as soon as possible to hasten statewide implementation of the new evaluation system”(NYSUT.org). In addition, the new law does not require the school district, BOCES, parents’ and teachers’ representative union to indicate the references used in the newly incorporated provisions in the successor collective bargaining agreements. Strict observance must be complied as regard to the consistencies with the provisions of the new Education Law. Responsibilities of the Board of Cooperative Educational Services or the BOCES, and the school district The new statewide evaluation system established by section 3012-c shall remain in full force and does not abolish the current Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR) regulations. “The Education Law Section 3012-c(3) mandates BOCES and school districts to faithfully conform with the requirements in Section 100.2(o) of the Commissioner’s regulations for all classroom teachers, prior to its effectivity date on July 1, 2011 and thereafter, as the provisions of the new law will commence”(The State Education Department). To conclude, “although some critics say that collective bargaining of teachers is not an absolute determinant of school quality in one way or another at the school level” (Hannaway 259), it is perceived that the enactment of the new law redounds to the benefit of the school district, BOCES, teachers and principals because they are given equal opportunities to improve their existing conditions and opens doors for more better opportunities which they can enjoy in the future. In the case of the students, they will be ensured of quality education as their teachers are required to attain a high level of effectiveness among their students. According to Tom Loveless, “what is certain however is that the scope of bargaining, although previously restricted in many states with regard to issues of wages, hours and working conditions, has in practice greatly expanded beyond those formal limits”(Loveless 27). References Bargaining for Better Schools, An Introduction to Collective Bargaining in Illinois Public Education. Retrieved March 8, 2011, from http://www.scribd.com/doc/32734830/Bargaining-for-Better-Schools-An-Introduction-to-Collective-Bargaining-in-Illinois-Public-Education BOCES OF NY STATE (2011). Retrieved March 8, 2011, from http://www.boces.org/wps/portal/BOCESofNYS Hannaway, Jane and Andrew J. Rotherham. (2006) Collective Bargaining in Education: Negotiating Change in Today’s Schools, (p.259) Harvard Education Press: Michigan. Henderson, Ronald D., Wayne J. Urban and Paul Wolfman, (eds).(2004). Teacher Unions and Educational Policy: Retrenchment or Reform? Elvesier Ltd.: Oxford, UK Loveless, Tom.(2002). Conflicting Missions?: Teacher’s Unions and Educational Reform, (p.27) Brookings University. Washington, D.C. New York Labor and Employment Law Report. (2011). Retrieved March 9, 2011, from http://www.nylaborandemploymentlawreport.com/tags/3012c/ NYSED.gov. (August 31, 2010). Retrieved March 8, 2011, from http://www.p12.nysed.gov/memos/performeval/qa.html NYSUT.org. (March 4, 2011). Retrieved March, 2011, from http://www.nysut.org/cps/rde/xchg/nysut/hs.xsl/index.htm Schlechty, Phillip C. (2001) Inventing Better Schools: An Action Plan for Educational Reform. John Wiley and Sons: New York. The State Education Department. (August 5, 2010) The University of the State of New York. Letter of Senior Deputy Commisioner for P-12 Education. Retrieved March 8, 2011, from http://www.nysut.org/files/research_100805_evaluations.pdf Read More