RSU 40 is looking for a change in teaching toward improved student learning. “This is not about money, it is about the children and how teachers teach!" The RSU 40 Board’s proposal has a different design from the traditional model that the Medomak Valley Education Association contracts had for many years in RSU 40, where teachers get all salary based on the amount of time they are in the system and the degrees they have obtained. The board’s goal is to improve student learning by providing voluntary financial incentives to teachers in addition to the existing teacher salary schedule where teachers are paid based on their years of teaching and/or teaching degrees.

In an effort to clarify information about the on-going RSU 40 teacher contract negotiations process, the Board of Directors is providing the following information:

Remaining Bargaining Issues

What are the issues at this point?

The unresolved issues are salary, health insurance, length of the contract, and extra-curricular stipends. Furthermore, the Association to date has resisted the board’s proposal to offer incentives for improvements in instructional practice and student achievement. This proposed first step for improved instruction will be more detailed and more individualized when the components of the new teacher and principal evaluation law are implemented in 2014-15, which also requires that student performance be a part of the evaluation system and that compensation is tied to evaluation.

As Mr. Brown, one of the Board negotiators, shared at the April 4 board meeting:

The Board, as well as the teachers, feels that we need to raise the performance of our students. At the present time, 4 of our 7 schools do not meet the goals of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and two of our schools have been designated as Continuous Improvement Plan Schools (CIPS), which means that at the elementary level (3-8) less then 70 percent of the students were proficient or above for mathematics and less then 75 percent were proficient in reading and at the high school level, less then 66 percent were proficient in mathematics and less then 78 percent were proficient in reading. At the same time, the board understands the reasons for teachers being paid more. The solution seems obvious and the Board has made an offer that, we feel, strikes a balance between the two desires.

The Board has proposed the following:

1. A raise of 2.66 percent, including a year’s experience step for any eligible teacher for the current contract year.

2. A raise of 2.5 percent, including any eligible experience step for 2013-2014; and

Voluntary teacher incentives beginning in the 2013-2014 contract year.

a. If 66 percent of the teachers agree to participate a Voluntary School Improvement Incentive of $1000 per teacher for at least one of the CIPS schools if there is growth of at least 10 percent of the students meeting the standard in both reading and math. Instituted by a vote of at least 66 percent of the faculty.

b. Other schools may voluntarily participate if 66 percent of the bargaining unit agrees.

c. An Individual Teacher Voluntary Advanced Degree Program Incentive of $500. For enrollment in and completion of 6 hours toward an educational advanced degree relevant to classroom instruction.

d. A Voluntary Facilitator Professional Development Incentive of $300 for a teacher who volunteers to facilitate staff development at the school or district level intended for student improvement.

e. A Voluntary Project-Centered or Community-Centered Learning Incentive of $500. As a result of evidence that demonstrates project or community centered learning. This will allow students the experience of hands-on learning project designed to integrate multiple skills in a real world setting outside of the classroom.

f. A Student Work and Assessment of Standards Portfolio Incentive of $200. If a teacher produces a portfolio of student work and assessment of standards aligned to the Common Core, and it contains evidence as supported by a rubric of necessary entries. This incentive helps to move students toward more individualization as they strive to meet standards.

Recent Maine Law requires the Board to have a teacher effectiveness pilot evaluation program in place by the 2014-2015 school year. This evaluation must include student performance as one component. The Association has been requested to participate in teacher effectiveness rating and incentive planning during the upcoming year with recommendations presented to the Board by Dec. 19.

Teachers’ Bargaining Proposals:

The teachers have proposed a 3 year 3 percent plus step increase (approx. 4.5 percent aggregate per year) with no tie toward improved student performance until the end of the next contract.

Bargaining Timeline:

The negotiations for the 2012-2013 teachers’ collective bargaining agreement started in January of 2012 with negotiations between the RSU 40 Board Negotiators and the Negotiators for the MVEA occurring about weekly. The process continued with regular meetings from January to June. Because the Association did not wish to meet during the summer, the Board was only able to schedule 2 sessions during summer break. Regular negotiations sessions reconvened in the fall during September and early Oct. Many language issues were resolved during this first 21 sessions of negotiations. In October, negotiations broke down and the group felt we needed to jointly file for mediation. The Maine Labor Relations Board appointed a mediator who met with the group in November and was scheduled to meet again in December. The teachers canceled the session in December and again in January. At that point in time, the Board asked the Association to come back together for a negotiation session, which did occur on two occasions in March. There was no progress toward a settlement therefore in an effort to move forward, the Board filed for fact-finding and at this point are awaiting a MLRB appointment of the team of fact-finders.

The process as it stands now will continue with a fact-finding panel review of the proposals and the unresolved issues. Subsequently, a report of the findings will be issued. This report will go to both negotiations teams for a 30-day review period, during which time the teams may agree to meet to try to resolve the outstanding issues. At the end of the 30 days, the report will become public. If a settlement is not forthcoming by that point, the final step in the process would be interest arbitrations.

Danny Jackson chairman of Regional School Unit 40.