Takeaways from TTA Contract Negotiations, Session 4

A heated discussion about the town budget ended the meeting

The Feb. 15 negotiating session was an eventful meeting, with both the Tewksbury Teachers Association and the district outright rejecting some proposals, countering some previous offers and coming to agreement in a few areas. At this point, all new proposals have been made; going forward there will be only counter proposals. We’ll break it all down below.

To see the rules for the open contract negotiations, click here; to see our Session 2 recap, click here; and you can read about Session 3 here. A copy of the current teacher’s contract is here, and the ESP (Education Support Personnel) contract is here.

Find the School Committee informational page here, and the TTA site here. And of course you can watch all the sessions on the Tewksbury TV YouTube channel.

Rejected Proposals

The TTA rejected (for teacher’s contract):

• The district proposal to add an additional hour, making the working day eight versus seven hours. This rejection includes any language that moved other duties, PLC (professional learning community) time, conferences and additional activities into the extra hour.
• Language the TTA said took away autonomy to make decisions about PLC time. Teachers feel they know best what they need and can use this time to collaborate as opposed to bringing in an outside coordinator.
• The three scheduled summer days for School Counselors. Even though counselors do sometimes come in for a couple of days in the summer, they were not comfortable adding the language to the contract.
• Shortening pre-kindergarten prep time from 75 to 65 minutes per day.
• Removing the language that planning time does not include the 30 minutes before student arrival times.
• Removal of “librarians” from lunch block duty. Even though the Ryan and Wynn do not have librarians currently, they may in the future.
• The change from academic teams to building principals developing instruction schedules.
• Allowing building principals to set the PLC schedule. Currently, coordination is done among members at times that are convenient for them. The TTA offered to have a schedule settled by Sept. 15.
• The removal of language stating that “department chairpersons shall have 68 minutes of prep time over seven days and will teach three of five blocks.” The extra free blocks would allow chairpersons to have more availability to perform their tasks.
• The removal of language that being a chaperone shall be by request, not mandatory. The TTA feels there have been no issues getting volunteers.
• The following added language: “As Academic positions are teacher leadership roles, the individuals holding these stipend-ed positions may be expected to perform duties outside of the teacher work year.” The reason is that stipend work may need to be done during the school day for various reasons.
• The language that removes the breakdown of how many blocks and lengths of blocks per day. The TTA would prefer to keep that a negotiated part of the contract.

The District rejected (for teacher’s contract):

• Additional half days because that cuts down on learning time for students. (TTA proposals 1, 2 and 3)
• Language stating that PLC Facilitators will use their best judgment in planning PLC agendas. This removed language that there would be mutual agreement between facilitators and building principals. (TTA Proposal 2)
• Removing language about lunch and recess duty. (TTA Proposal 4)
• Seniority being the deciding factor in a transfer; the district finds it too restrictive. (TTA Proposal 5)
• Class-size caps. (TTA Proposal 8)
• The proposal that Special Education educators in the K-8 schools who conduct required student evaluations within a 30-day IEP testing window will receive a 45-minute duty-free block of time per student evaluation. The district is willing to do this if the pieces fit, but they don’t want to formalize it in the contract. (TTA Proposal 9)
• Building in a “reasonable amount of time” to pass between classes. Per the district’s attorney, Rosann DiPietro, “district administration feels that that is instructional, kids are learning things when they line up … it is instruction in and of itself.” (TTA Proposal 10)
• The language about air conditioning, Wi-Fi and data services. The district does not feel these belong in the contract. The district also argued that, right now, they are working on updating the HVAC in the Wynn and Ryan, but cost estimates came in much higher than expected. There is also ongoing work at the Heath Brook due to flooding, and classes are still displaced. The TTA is arguing that it is only getting hotter, and the working conditions are not acceptable. They further noted that when admin was waiting for the Center Elementary School to open, that AC window units were provided for department heads only. (TTA Proposal 11)
• Adding a half-day before December vacation was rejected because it cuts into learning time. (TTA Proposal 12)
• Allowing the TTA Associate President to be relieved of 20% of their teaching schedule. The district feels this is too much time away from the classroom, especially if this individual is a teacher at the lower elementary level. (TTA Proposal 13)
• Adding language about working conditions for the DLC (developmental learning classroom). The district believes this is more about programming and not working conditions and shouldn’t be added to the contract. (TTA Proposal 15)
• The language that says there can be as many TTA training days as members, since it would mean 364 days of hiring substitute teachers and is a financial liability. (TTA Proposal 18)

The District rejected (common proposals for both contracts):

• Staff will receive notice by June 30 of assignments for next year. The district feels it needs leeway to be able to make adjustments after that cutoff. (TTA Family Support Proposal)

Accepted Proposals

The District accepted (common proposals for both contacts):

• Adding language that adds parents and step-parents to the list of people staff can take a sick day to care for. (TTA Family Support Proposal)
• Adding up to five days of bereavement leave, and adding additional family members that leave applies for. The one point that needed clarification was if it was five days per year or per loss.
• The housekeeping proposal to change all pronouns to gender neutral.

The TTA accepted (for teacher’s contact):

• That if the Friday before April vacation is Good Friday, then Thursday will be the half day.
• Including that Kindergarten teachers get a duty-free lunch.
• Changing “Newspaper Advisor” to “Media Advisor” for Student News.

Proposals on hold

There are many proposals that are on hold for a variety of reasons, including a need for more information from the district or the TTA needing to speak to membership.

Moving the contracted aides in-house so they can be union members is in process and not finalized. The current proposal from the district is to change from six hours, 20 minutes and 182 days to seven hours ,184 days for current district employees. For the first two years of the contract, current employees would be able to chose which schedule they want to work, with the same pay rate for both. In the third year, they would have to start working the longer hours. Any new employees would start with the longer hours.

In addition, the plan is to migrate all contract positions over to the district over the next three years. The steps would be based on years working in the school and not years as a district employee. This would come with the understanding that, if a position could not be filled by the district, they could use a contracting service to fill the holes.

Some stipends for ESPs were accepted by the district, for diapering, an hourly rate for the club assistant, and the kindergarten orientation. There is a plan to have a separate schedule for Registered Behavior Technicians (RBTs). ESPs doing short-term subbing, for up to 10 days, would earn $100 per day, on top of their regular salaries and $150 per day for long-term subbing. The TTA needs to discuss this with membership.

ESP salaries are still in discussion. The district has made no decisions yet on longevity pay, and there is still no agreement on salary increases. The district came back with a counter proposal that set the highest ESP salary at the same rate as the lowest proposed by the TTA. School Committee member Rich Russo did some quick math concerning the district’s proposal and pointed out that a current Step 1 is currently paid $20.44 hourly, and next year as a Step 2, they would make $24, which is approximately a 15% raise. The TTA also needs to discuss this with membership before making a decision.

Article V section 4 of the ESP contract was the subject of a lengthy conversation. TTA Co-President Emily Noel raised concerns that the language was being changed so that a principal can assign ESPs to cover for an absent teacher, as opposed to an ESP being able to choose to step up. Noel is concerned that if a principal could pull aides from classes, then teachers may wind up in violation of an IEP. The preference is to keep the language as is.

The district is still holding on half day sick day proposals. They are willing to accept this if the ESPs accept their proposal to step up to substitute. The ESPs are still reviewing the compensation offer before agreeing.

New suggested start times for schools are on hold, temporarily. There were adjustments to the district proposal, but the TTA rejected an eight-hour work day. There were questions from the union in regard to whether time changes are due to busing.

Parent/teacher conference times are still being negotiated because of the different solutions suggested. The TTA would prefer a half day with conferences in the afternoon and the evening, while the district proposed they be during the eighth hour that the TTA rejected.

The TTA was looking for clarification on the addition of breakfast duty since the change did not outline the parameters of that duty.

A $3,600 per year stipend for afternoon bus duties in on hold by the district for a larger conversation about duties.

The district is holding on increasing the percentage of buyback for sick days and paid parental leave. This also includes temporary leave with pay and additional personal days. The district is holding on most financial decisions currently.

Assault protection language is still being hashed out. The district had some counters to the TTA proposal. One point that was stressed was a need for confidentiality. While the district can’t guarantee a response in a day, they are willing to say they will respond promptly. They also wanted to clarify that it may not be the building principal investigating, but possibly a Title IX administrator. They also don’t want to be constrained to a 48-hour turn around.

The TTA questioned the change of schedule B titles of Literary Magazine to Media Advisor for Student Creative Arts and Detention Supervisor to Restorative Justice Coordinator. They want clarification on if this would change the roles as they are currently performed.  

The TTA was also looking for clarification on how pay would work for overnight chaperoning, since it is a liability to be monitoring students overnight.  

Adding new department heads is on hold for further discussion.

The most contentious part of the meeting came at the end with a discussion over the town budget and cost of living raises being sought. DiPietro asked Business Manager Dave Libby how much additional money was coming to the schools in the new budget, since there is a large difference between what the district has offered as a cost-of-living raise and what the TTA has asked for. Libby responded that it is roughly $1.35 million. DiPietro then got confirmation from Town Manager Richard Montuori that the additional money also comes with a tax increase to town residents. Montuori confirmed that 60% of the town budget is allocated for the schools, and this is the traditional amount.

You can find more details on the town budget, including the share for schools and projected tax increases for FY25, here, and highlights of Libby’s FY24/25 budget presentation are here.

MTA Field Representative Organizer Ted Lewis, representing the TTA, then countered that annually the town underestimates its revenue “by millions of dollars,” and the union believes that money should go toward education as opposed to bolstering free cash. DiPietro then pointed out that part of the town’s budget approach is not to use one-time cash to fund ongoing operational expenses. The district is already facing this with the loss of ESSER funds and having to find money in the budget to fill some of the positions that had been grant-funded.

Lewis countered that Tewksbury underestimates revenue every year, and that this money should be assumed and put towards education. He suggested looking at previous years’ budgets and getting a better financial picture so that more money can be allocated to the schools.

Montuori got a little testy at this point, stating, facetiously, that he has never considered going back and looking at previous years when he does the town budget. He is also more than willing to come back at the next meeting and do a presentation on how the town estimates receipts. There was some back and forth about money in free cash and the town needing the reserves.

Montuori stated that Lewis is oversimplifying the issue, and that it’s not as black and white as he claims.

You can view this interaction on the link below starting at 3 hours 10 minutes.

It would appear, based on the circulated flyers below, that the MTA has been pushing other towns to use their free cash reserves to fund education.

The negotiation can be seen in its entirety here. The next negotiation is set for March 6.