Disturbing language at this year’s first bargaining session

As you all know, the two teams met in bargaining last week.

Management brought its first salary proposal, along with some disturbing contract language proposals. The superintendent shared their salary proposal with all of you in an email yesterday. Their proposal was a reasonable first proposal, but it was just that: a first proposal.

Beginning versus senior teacher pay

It is clear that management would like to continue its recent trend of disproportionately increasing the beginning teacher salary. Doing so makes more senior teachers feel under-appreciated, which is something that must be considered in any final settlement.

Plus, the idea of a salary cap on teacher salaries is insulting to teachers. Why would a teacher’s salary be capped, while a chief’s salary can rise unabated? That seems demeaning to teachers. 

Professional development versus personal time

Things are more dicey on the language side.

The superintendent was very quick to point out to you that our teachers are always seeking more professional development. Yet, his actual proposal was to mandate professional development during what is now a teacher’s own time, without compensation.

Specifically, his proposal would increase the number of mandatory faculty meetings per month from one to two — AND to allow professional development (PD) to occur in both! If he really thinks our staff is so committed to PD, why does he feel a need to require it without compensation?

Also, a reminder: in last year’s round of bargaining, we granted them more time for PD during a second PLC planning period per month.

Watering down certification requirements

Another proposal of great concern would change some of the district’s certification requirements.

We always thought that, as a district, we should exceed the statutory minimum requirements in teacher certification for some positions. For instance, we always felt that our Art, Music and Physical Education teachers should always hold those certifications.

Under their proposal offered at yesterday’s session, however, any elementary certified teacher could teach in those subject areas rather than someone specially trained in these areas. We can only imagine what the Art community will think of that proposal, as we head into the referendum election. 

More proposals of concern

In another proposal, they are trying to make it more difficult for teachers to move to a new school being opened, if their existing school is losing staff. That seems inappropriate to us.

They also rejected our proposal to allow 12-month staff to be paid out for their accumulated vacation days over 60. Their odd argument was that the law does not specifically mention it, so it is not allowed. Our argument is that it’s not prohibited and is currently done for some-high level employees — so why not front-line workers, too?

I remain optimistic that we can reach a reasonably quick and amiable settlement to this year’s bargaining.  While I appreciate the superintendent’s professing his admiration for this district’ s staff, I just wish his bargaining proposals would greater reflect that value.

Author Barry Dubin is president of the Sarasota Classified/Teachers Association