SPS Collective Bargaining Chronology

“Employees shall have the right to organize and to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing." --Missouri Constitution

We could consult with our ComArts colleagues to analyze this declarative sentence lifted from the Missouri Constitution, but the language seems simple enough. Despite what some would have us believe, there simply is no restrictive language stating "pending guidance from the legislature" or "as interpreted by school administrators" or "as interpreted by school boards". The right to organize and bargain through a representative of your choosing is a real, tangible right that literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of teachers in thirty-four states have had for many years.

Collective Bargaining in R-12: Request and Rejection

You may recall that after last spring's Supreme Court decision on May 29, Springfield NEA sent a letter to school board president, Kris Callen, requesting that SNEA, as the majority teacher group in our district, begin negotiating with the district regarding terms and conditions of employment for district teachers.

SNEA received a reply from Mrs. Callen dated June 4, 2007, that first suggested we take up the matter of representation with the superintendent or Human Resources - and then proceeded to"respectfully reject" SNEA's request to be recognized as exclusive bargaining representative. The letter further stated that:

"If this recent ruling brings our current practices or policies into conflict with state law or Missouri's Constitution . . . we will move quickly to make any necessary adjustments."

We believe the District is in conflict with the constitutional right that allows employees, not school districts, to choose their bargaining agent.

Rejection II. . . the Sequel

Some three months later (9/7/07), after conferring with school board members and determining that a clear majority did not object to a teacher election to choose a representative organization, SNEA delivered a letter to Dr. Ridder proposing that the district agree to hold an election to democratically determine a bargaining agent for Springfield teachers.

One week later (9/14/07), Dr. Ridder respectfully declined the proposal, citing a 1990 teacher representative election that proved indecisive. The letter stated that, subsequent to that election, "the District began its current practice of considering input from the members of both teachers' groups . . .The District prefers to maintain its current practices which have proven to be workable and fair to all the teachers in the District." So, are we to conclude that an indecisive election held seventeen years ago should automatically suspend the practice of holding future elections? Would any Social Studies teachers care to weigh-in on that one?

The school board has since met in closed session to discuss collective bargaining issues and SNEA's request for an election. We're told that the board has asked for time to research and compare exclusive representative agreements from several districts currently utilizing collective bargaining (Rockwood, Parkway, Fort Zumwalt and others).

Who Determines What Is Workable and Fair?

A little local history here: after the "teacher election" of 1990 that ended in a tie, an umbrella group was formed with leadership from both teacher groups. Barely two years passed before this ineffectual advisory group was disbanded. Since then, leadership from teacher organizations have been allowed to participate on selected committees (Compensation, Insurance, Calendar). In order to hear teacher concerns, Dr. Ridder holds monthly Open Forums.

[The SPS committee structure is rather fluid from year-to-year and sometimes from meeting-to-meeting. Example: Last year, the Compensation Committee (organized by HR) held several monthly meetings to approve salary recommendations to the Cabinet - and, in the last session, to vote on a SNEA proposal to reduce or eliminate SIP Days and roll $1.1 million of SIP funds into salaries. While SNEA and MSTA, representing some 1,700 teachers, each had one voting representative on the committee - as did custodians, cooks, transportation, secretaries - for reasons that were never made clear, three representatives from the principals' group attended the final meeting as voting members. Needless to say, the SIP proposal went down in flames, as the principals and the MSTA rep lined up in opposition. Fair and workable?]

What Has MSTA Proposed?

MSTA, through its Jefferson City leadership, has proposed legislation and guidelines that provides a formula for including all teacher groups at the bargaining table. Their proposal would allow any number of teacher groups to have representation based on their percentage of membership in the district. If the MSTA formula were applied to Springfield at the present time, MSTA would have three representatives and SNEA would have four.

It's interesting to note - and should come as no surprise - that the Missouri Association of School Administrators (MASA) favors the MSTA proposal. The Missouri School Board Association (MSBA), meanwhile, is advising its members - Springfield is once again a finalist for the MSBA "School Board of the Year" award - to avoid making any agreements with teacher groups until the state legislature can create laws providing guidelines for collective bargaining agreements.

Why Does SNEA Promote Collective Bargaining?

Teachers in Springfield provide the continuity (14 years average service), dedication and professionalism that have made this district a high performing district for many years - through frequent leadership changes, superintendent-driven initiatives, curriculum adoptions and school board elections. Despite their consistently high performance, teachers have been routinely left out of the decision-making process regarding policies and practices that directly affect their work in the classroom. For the most part, what's "fair and workable" has been determined at the district level with only spotty input from teachers.

SNEA believes that the professionals who are working directly with the students should be directly involved in determining district guidelines and policies regarding concerns like:

• Teacher Planning Time
• Discipline Policies
• Before and after school programs
• Determining length of contract day
• After school meetings
• Class sizes
• Curriculum material
• Definition of instructional time
• Extracurricular activities
• Calendar and schedule changes
• Professional development planning
• Principal Evaluations
• Mandated district initiatives

Many of these issues have already been raised this year by teachers across the district, yet district policies remain quite vague in many of these areas, and the district makes the sole determination of what is "reasonable" in most cases.

Let's be clear . . . SNEA is not "at odds" with the current school board or district leadership. SNEA feels that bringing teachers together through a representative of their own choosing will provide a framework for meaningful negotiations on matters that will improve teaching and learning conditions in our schools and classrooms - that's the primary reason we support collective bargaining in our district.

Building Meetings, Comments

Many of you have worked in school systems that implemented collective bargaining. We would love to hear from you about your experiences - please feel free to comment. SNEA would also like to start holding member meetings in your buildings to discuss any number of concerns and answer any questions about collective bargaining you may have. Please call 869-5090 or email us at snea@aol.com to set up a time and place. Off-site meetings can also be arranged.