PRPE’s Position on the New Teacher/Counselor/Nurse Evaluation Handbook

             The district, with its new evaluation procedure and refusal to negotiate associated contract changes, has challenged the integrity of the contract by saying it can unilaterally change contract provisions, then refuse to negotiate those changes with the obvious goal to alter the provisions of the contract without the union’s participation.  We cannot allow this to happen or it will nullify our contract and allow the district to make unilateral changes in all of our terms and conditions of employment.  We must unify to challenge these unilateral changes to our evaluation procedure.

We all know that teacher evaluation is one of the new “hot button” issues in education.  We have all heard about the “bad” teachers in our midst and that if we could just get rid of them, our problems would be solved.  This perception is supported by special interests that crave simple solutions to complex problems. It also ignores the fact that 50% (Yes, even in this economy) of new “good” teachers leave the profession before they complete 5 years service because of the lack of support by a society that so undervalues teachers that a 20% cut in their resources is acceptable.

            In Paso Robles last year, we were faced with a few principals that thought it was acceptable to make a district goal:  “Students in our district five years or longer will meet grade-level proficiency in core academic subjects as measured by the CST. Students will increase a minimum of one performance level per year ” into teachers’ individual goals even though the research is clear and the CA State Department of  Education has repeatedly stated that the CST Test was never designed to be used to evaluate teachers.  PRPE filed a grievance on this issue and finally cooler heads prevailed when the district agreed that student test scores would not be used in teacher evaluations.

            All of that being said PRPE also realizes, along with our affiliates CTA and CFT, that the teacher evaluation system is in need of reform and last year we agreed to meet with the district on this issue as a joint evaluation reform committee.  We met a number of times to examine reform efforts across the country.  We discussed best practices that included multiple measures of performance and the funding necessary to reform the current system.  For example, in Denver, they have implemented a well-researched system (Pro-Comp) with funding from a parcel tax.  Our superintendent and the committee spent many hours meeting, discussing and researching many different approaches to reforming teacher evaluations. 

            Our contract (Article 8 Section L) states that, “Changes in the forms used for evaluation may be made at the discretion of the District after consultation with the Exclusive Representative (PRPE)”   We agree, but the superintendent presented us with an entirely new Evaluation Handbook that not only contained new forms, but also entirely changed the evaluation procedure itself.  Any changes to our evaluation procedure are within the scope of bargaining, but they were made unilaterally by the district and were not negotiated. 

            During our most recent negotiations sessions, the district representatives repeatedly said that there were no changes in the evaluation procedure (Are you kidding me?) and that they would not negotiate any of the changes that PRPE has identified.  However, they have already modified the new handbook to remove the initial 3 levels of performance (Meets Standards Proficient, Minimally Meets Standards and Does Not Meet Standards) back to the current contract language of two levels, Satisfactory and Unsatisfactory.  Furthermore, it is clearly apparent to anyone who has attended the new orientation process that the evaluation procedure has been drastically changed and saying it hasn’t over and over again does not make it so. 

            PRPE has identified many substantive changes to the evaluation procedure outlined in the new handbook.  However since the district has refused to negotiate these changes, we have no recourse but to use the grievance process to challenge these unilateral changes.

            The first important deadline is November 1^st when teachers and counselors (who are included in this process for the first time) must have their six goals (as opposed to 2 in the current contract) written out and presented to their evaluator.  Therefore, PRPE is now developing a checklist for certificated members to use in order to identify when the contract has been violated and to then file a grievance.  

            These grievances will be filed at the site level in conjunction with PRPE and their purpose is to enforce the current contract language related to the Evaluation Article 8.   We must unite and demonstrate to the administration and the school board members that although we are committed to responsible reform we will not be ignored when the contract is violated.  We will continue to demand that the contract be followed until it is changed through the negotiation process.

            Please work together with your PRPE site representative so that we can execute our plan (with fidelity) to challenge this district assault on our legal contract.  We will need every one of you to send a clear message to the district. We are ready to work together to improve the education our students receive, but we cannot do it without a collaborative effort.  We believe in collaboration and that is why we agreed to extend our agreement with the district for Wednesday collaboration time.  However we expect that commitment to be reciprocal, especially when it comes to our employment contract.

            Please contact your PRPE site rep, your negotiations team member, your executive board member with your questions and concerns.

            Your PRPE Negotiations Team, Executive Board and Site Representatives