My name is Ryan Normandin, and I've been teaching math and physics at Newton South High School since 2013. There's been a lot of confusion and misinformation surrounding the negotiations between the Newton School Committee (SC) and the Newton Teachers Association (NTA), so my hope is to provide a clear, detailed picture of where we've been and where we should go next.
On July 20, the SC sent out an email informing the community that they’d reached an impasse with the NTA in negotiating a new contract to replace the one expiring on August 31 of this year. This email was a disappointing read; it included false information and, via implications and omissions, painted an inaccurate picture of negotiations between the SC and the NTA.
This essay will take you through helpful basics, background, and history that will help to illustrate and give context to the situation in which Newton currently finds itself.
The Basics
Two terms that will come up frequently in the discussion of the negotiations are “step increase” and “cost of living adjustment” (COLA).
When an educator is hired, they are placed onto a particular “ladder” depending on their background (Bachelors, Masters, etc). Then, each year, they move one “step” up the ladder until reaching the final step. Each step is accompanied by a salary increase reflecting the additional experience and expertise that this educator has earned through their work. They can move “sideways,” from the Bachelors ladder to the Masters ladder, for example, if they earn the additional qualifications through schooling.
Separate from this, there is also a cost of living adjustment (COLA) that educators receive annually. This is not a raise – this is a way of compensating the reduced buying power of educator salary due to inflation.
This means that, every year, the salary indicated on each step of the ladder increases by an amount aiming to keep pace with inflation. Because educators on the top step no longer receive step increases, districts will sometime use the COLA to bake in an additional small “raise” for those individuals who have already maxed out.
See an example below:
If I were hired on Step 1 with a Bachelors degree in January 2020, my salary would be $50,676.01. In March of the following year, I would climb to step 2, but the COLA means that I would not be earning the $52,722.87 in the original ladder, but instead a salary of $54,047.86 as shown in the second ladder.
The greater the number of steps, the longer it takes for an employee to climb the ladder and reach their “maximum” earnings, so employers will often seek to increase the number of steps and workers will look to decrease the number of steps.
A crucial point: COLA’s are a vital component of any contract, to be sure, but they are not the entire contract. The contract that is negotiated between the NTA and Newton SC establishes the working conditions of Newton Public School (NPS) employees, and therefore the learning conditions of NPS students.
History
The SC’s July 20 email implies that nine months is typical of the “long time” that union negotiations take. This has been typical for Newton, but, in most municipalities, it is less so. To have made so little progress after this long of a time is unusual. Even more atypical is the number of instances in the last twenty years that Newton educators have returned to work in the fall without a new contract after the previous had expired: 2006, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2014, and 2019 were all such years.
It's also useful to be aware that negotiations are not necessarily antagonistic. During the financial crisis of 2008-09, the NTA accepted a one-year contract with only a $180 COLA for employees on the top step – other employees got nothing.
In the Fall of 2011, the NTA made concessions on health insurance, accepted a modest COLA, a new salary schedule with lower step increases, and agreed to move our step increases from September to March. Moving the date at which the step increases kick in would allow the City of Newton to save money every year, since the pay boosts would be delayed by six months, allowing the city’s money to continue to earn interest.
Both contracts have demonstrated that the NTA has historically negotiated in good faith, and that it’s been willing to take a hit when doing so is necessary for the city and for the students. Unfortunately, the SC has not been so gracious.
In 2013, under Mayor Setti Warren, the City of Newton passed both an operating override and a debt exclusion, one of only two overrides since the year 2000. As you can see in the table below, this is remarkably low for a city like Newton.
The increase in property tax revenue allowed Newton to increase the school budget substantially in 2014-15. From 2013 to 2016, NPS added 240 staff members, which amounted to a 13% increase in staffing.
And yet, despite the good times, and despite all that the NTA had given up, the SC’s opening proposal in 2014 was a small COLA conditioned on NTA agreeing to increase health insurance premiums. If NTA wished to keep health insurance premiums where they were, then the COLA offered by the SC would instead be 0% over three years.
The 2014-15 and 2015-18 contracts required hard-fought campaigns. While the contracts that resulted were good, fair, and comparable to other districts, it was nonetheless surprising that NTA needed to fight as hard as they did just to earn something reasonable, especially in light of all that they’d given up over the previous six years and the financial strength of the city.
2022-23 Contract Negotiations
Before we get into the details of this year’s contract negotiations, I would like to highlight that the SC hired the attorney Liz Valerio to represent their interests. In FY2023, the Town of Andover spent $430,000 on her services; since 2020, her fees have totaled $1.5 million. The SC has claimed that even a 0% COLA in the new contract would leave the city in deficit, but has opted to hire this same attorney.
Recently, Valerio represented Brookline, which resorted to striking after painful and drawn-out negotiations. The process has been similarly lengthy in Newton, with drastic and provocative measures, such as eliminating kindergarten aides and attempting to scrap the Time and Learning agreements (more on that later). Further, the SC has refused to try to reach tentative agreements on individual proposals, considering only “packages,” and, while claiming that it is only money that separates the two groups, have refused to bargain individual proposals with no financial implications. The NTA suspects that the SC was bargaining toward achieving an impasse, which they filed with the State of Massachusetts claiming an impasse last week. The NTA did not join them in filing.
If a state mediator comes in and is unable to further negotiations, the NTA would be forced to accept the “last best offer,” which would save the district a large amount of money by unfairly compensating its employees.
If, as the NTA contends, the SC was negotiating toward this end goal, then this would be negotiating in bad faith.
So you are able to discern for yourselves, clicking below will expand details of each negotiating session from this year. For a summary only, continue reading.
The following is a collection of details and highlights from negotiations sessions between the NTA and School Committee over the course of the last year.
October 20, 2022
This initial meeting was to establish ground rules. No negotiation of the contract itself was done, but both sides expressed a desire for avoiding a lengthy, drawn-out process.
November 21
The School Committee’s opening proposal included:
• Fewer sick days and personal days, along with restrictions on use
• Increasing the number of educator work days
• Limiting access to the sick bank for employees
• Changes to health insurance, tuition free attendance by children of staff, and the Time and Learning Agreements
Initial NTA proposals included:
• COLA’s that addressed the current levels of inflation
o FY2024: 7.75% (to account for losses in earning power due to inflation)
o FY2025: 4.5%
o FY2026: 4.5%
• Improved and more equitable longevity payments (educators who’ve reached top step and have been in the district for a certain number of years)
• Moving step increases back to September (recall they were moved to March back in 2011 in the wake of the Great Recession)
• Improved Unit C (aides, behavioral & occupational therapists, and other specialists) starting salaries
o Note that we currently have around 100 unfilled paraprofessional positions
• Improved substitute coverage
• Improved parental and family sick leave policies
• Improved technology infrastructure
• Increased tuition reimbursement budget
• Additional elementary prep time
• More equitable middle school meeting times
• Shift of meeting times in high school to mornings
• Improved evaluation protocols to support the growth of members on Directed Growth Plans and Improvement Plans
One thing that I would like you to take note of is the number of items on here which directly impact students. Attracting more Unit C folks to Newton, improving substitute coverage, improving technology infrastructure, and increasing prep time are all items which directly lead to a better experience for students.
November 30
During this session, the SC proposed changing the policy allowing staff members who live out of the district to enroll their children in NPS for free. The SC proposed charging materials fees and restricting access to special education services.
Additionally, the SC proposed the following restrictions on sick days:
This policy was, presumably, an attempt to decrease staff absenteeism within NPS.
However, the SC confirmed that they had not disaggregated the use of sick leave and sick leave bank days for new employees to see if the usage was meaningfully different. As such, they could not say how these policies would impact absenteeism.
December 8
The SC canceled this session.
December 21
The SC proposed forming a committee to review the elementary school day, but could not or would not state what it was that they thought needed to be examined about the school day.
They also shared that they have been “too busy” to schedule more than one additional bargaining session, leaving NTA with only one two-hour session per month over the next four months, essentially ruling out any progress until after the override vote on March 14.
But the biggest surprise of this session was the SC’s desire to scrap the Time and Learning Agreements. These agreements, originally negotiated in 1996-97, accommodate DESE regulations around time on learning. Below I’ve listed parts of the agreements, along with what changes the School Committee would like to make to each part of the agreement.
Given the large number of agreements the SC proposed to eliminate, the NTA was curious as to what the SC wished to replace these agreements with. In response, the SC was able to give only one example of a specific: they were only allowed to offer four early release days in middle school, and they wanted to change that.
In other words, the SC was seeking the NTA to write them a blank check – the SC referred to it as “flexibility,” but in reality, this would give the employer wide-reaching power over working conditions. It is difficult to overstate the amount of power this would give the SC. They could assign educators extra classes, create and assign additional duties, limit prep time, schedule meetings whenever they wanted, or change early releases. They could do all of these things without having to negotiate them, without having to consult any educators along the way, and with no additional compensation.
I want to emphasize that this was quite a radical request that would upend over twenty-five years of practice, especially given the SC’s inability to explain themselves beyond desiring greater flexibility.
January 25, 2023
This was a session that felt productive. The SC finally responded to several prior proposals, and agreements were reached or were close on several items, including Unit E entry level pay, sick day use for family/close friends, and tuition reimbursement.
February 13
More tentative agreements were reached on smaller items.
March 16
The SC still had no counter to the NTA’s COLA proposal, which meant that while more tentative agreements could be made on minor issues, there could be no substantial steps forward.
Additionally, the SC continued to push the elimination of the Time and Learning Agreements (explained in the December section).
They also proposed charging students of NPS employees attending NPS from out of district around $2,000 per year per child; for K-12, this amounted to around $33,000.
Further, the SC wanted discretion to refuse student admission or the right to send them back to their home district if their presence gave rise to “additional costs.”
Arguably, the SC was seeking the ability to refuse to allow the children of out-of-district educators the ability to enroll in NPS if they required special ed.
Furthermore, they sought to eliminate the NTA’s right to grieve (file a grievance) the district’s decisions on these issues. So, if the district tried to refuse a student because their special ed was “too expensive,” the NTA would be unable to fight back to protect this student.
In contrast, the NTA continued to push proposals that were actively beneficial for students. They had proposals on the table that would place a social worker in every building, as mental health support has been such a pressing need post-pandemic, along with improved substitute coverage and increased starting salaries for educational support staff.
March 24
This was not a negotiation session, but it was an important date nonetheless, as this was when Tamika Olszewski emailed the NTA and informed them that the SC “will likely be unable to meet the minimum staffing provision set forth in Article 3, Section 6 of the Unit C collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) regarding Category 1 full-time Kindergarten Teaching Assistants (“KTA”).”
In other words, the SC cut kindergarten aides, which the contract expressly prohibits. I want to highlight here, again, that this is something that directly benefits students – because this is in the contract, the NTA is able to adjudicate this, and expects to win. This incident also highlights why the NTA is so reluctant to give the SC the flexibility they request; when they’ve shown a willingness to violate legal agreements, there is a real concern as to what they would do if there were not agreements outlining what they can and cannot do without bargaining.
April 4
For the first time, the SC responded to the NTA’s initial COLA proposal. The NTA initial proposal was:
FY2024: 7.5% (to account for losses in earning power due to inflation)
FY2025: 4.5%
FY2026: 4.5%
The SC responded with:
And the NTA counterproposal was:
April 26
The SC’s counter-proposal was:
And the NTA responded with the following proposal:
As a quick comparison, here’s a colorful and accurate chart from Newton Cartoons comparing the SC’s proposed COLA to some other districts’:
The SC continued to oppose full-time social workers in every building.
This was also around the time that Mayor Fuller cut retiree benefits and increased health insurance premiums.
May 18
The SC did not counter-propose on COLA, asked no questions, and when asked if they were going to reply, said “No.”
Small progress continued, with a tentative agreement reached on compensating middle/high school educators who cover classes of absent colleagues during their prep blocks.
June 1
Kathy Shields announced “a new phase” of bargaining by presenting a comprehensive package proposal.
The SC took all their proposals currently on the table, rejected all of the NTA’s, and said, “take it or leave it.”
This was unexpected and highly unusual. Package proposals like this are not presented until parties are much closer together in their proposals than the SC and the NTA were at this time, where they were quite far apart on COLA and other items. The SC’s revised COLA proposal was:
The SC next wrote up their “package proposal” as five Memoranda of Agreement as one would prepare a final agreement ready for ratification. They did this all despite the SC being quite far apart from the NTA on several items.
In return for the above-noted increased COLA by one tenth of one percent over three years, they asked the NTA to:
1) Withdraw proposals for things like adequate substitute coverage, increased planning time, and enhanced mental health supports for students.
2) Give the SC the contractual right to make changes to the work day with no further requirement to bargain these changes. This means they could add professional development days, decrease prep time, require that middle school teachers teach additional sections, and assign high school teachers teaching or other responsibilities for six out of seven blocks in the schedule.
3) Shift more rising costs of health insurance premiums onto employees by increasing out-of-pocket expenses.
4) Charge all employees who enroll their out-of-district children in NPS a fee of approximately $2,300 per year
5) Expel or deny admittance to out-of-district children of NPS employees who require special education services.
June 12
The SC continued to insist on the proposal that bundles their terms into one package and rejects all the NTA’s proposals.
July 20
Leading into this meeting, the SC could find zero available dates in all of August to schedule additional bargaining sessions.
The NTA counterproposed the following COLA, again demonstrating a willingness to come down and negotiate.
The SC declared that they would be filing with the state that negotiations had reached the impasse. They asked the NTA if they would like to also file, and the NTA declined, as they did not feel that they were at a true impasse, but rather that the SC had negotiated in bad faith, suspecting this as their planned conclusion all along.
Key Takeaways from the 2022-23 Contract Negotiations
Over the course of the year, the SC refused to offer a competitive COLA. While surrounding districts who have recently settled contracts obtained COLA’s of between 10-15% over three years, the SC refused to hit even 6% over three years. This was problematic for the NTA, especially in light of the amount of money educators have lost because the previous COLA was so drastically outpaced by inflation.
Another hallmark of the negotiations was the SC repeatedly requesting enormous, unilateral power to make changes that did not need to be bargained. They sought to scrap the Time and Learning Agreements, a set of agreements which outline everything from the length of the school day to educator duties, student contact hours, and professional development. They could/would never explain what exactly they wished to replace the agreements with, only that they desired greater “flexibility.”
I want to emphasize that this, in particular, is a highly unusual request. They could assign educators extra classes, create and assign additional duties, limit prep time, schedule meetings whenever they want, or change early releases. They could do all of these things without having to negotiate them, without having to consult any educators along the way, and without any additional compensation.
Finally, the SC repeatedly refused to move on student-centric proposals by the NTA. NTA proposals to put a full-time social worker in every building were rejected, as were proposals to increase substitute coverage so that students will have more time in the classroom learning, and proposals to improve tech infrastructure, hire more tech support, and increase planning time to better serve students.
Instead, the SC illegally (it’s being adjudicated, but it’s pretty clearly illegal) cut kindergarten aides in direct violation of the contract that mandates every kindergarten class have an aide. They fought to cut educator planning time, and they tried to charge educators $33,000 from K-12 for enrolling their out-of-district students in the Newton Public Schools.
Further, the SC sought the unilateral right to refuse admission to out-of-district children of NPS employees or kick these students out of the school system if “unexpected costs” came up. In other words, they wanted the right to refuse to serve employees’ out-of-district children requiring special ed. They additionally advocated that the NTA should lose the ability to grieve (file a grievance) these decisions. So if they did refuse to serve a student requiring special ed on that basis, the NTA would be unable to protect that student.
On June 1, the SC announced that a “new phase” of bargaining would begin. They packaged all their proposals into one bundle, written up as a set of Memoranda of Agreement to be ratified, rejected all the NTA proposals, and said “take it or leave it.” This packaging of proposals typically occurs when the two sides are close together on a set of proposals, and are ready to begin finalizing, not when the two sides were as remarkably far apart as they were.
Despite this unorthodox move, the NTA still sought to come to an agreement, and tried to schedule additional bargaining sessions during the month of August. Unfortunately, the SC reported that they could find not a single day during which they were available to bargain before the current contract expires on August 31.
The July 20 School Committee Email
On Thursday, July 20, the SC sent out an email to the community claiming that an impasse had been reached, and they would be filing for mediation with the state.
This email was filled with erroneous and misleading information. They included in their list of accomplishments things that they themselves opposed, such as allowing out-of-district children of NPS employees the ability to enroll in NPS at no cost.
The SC suggested that the NTA is planning a “work stoppage,” and highlights how disruptive such an action would be to students and families.
To clarify a very important point:
The NTA is planning to engage in “work to rule” in the fall, assuming no agreement on the contract is reached.
Work to rule ISN’T a work stoppage (classes will continue, educators will continue to prepare for those classes during the school day, assignments will continue to be graded, etc)
Work to rule IS no longer participating in voluntary activities. (educators will arrive at the beginning of the contractual day and leave at the end, they will not participate in advisory roles for clubs that are unpaid, nor participate in committees)
As of the writing of this piece, the SC has yet to issue a correction regarding the misleading elements of their email.
Why is This Happening?
The SC insists that they lack the funds to offer the NTA anything more than what they are currently offering. If true, the only person who can fix that is Mayor Fuller.
One might imagine the City Council would have some sway over financial decisions, but during last year’s budget crisis, the City Council discovered that they have no legal power. The City Council voted to reject Mayor Fuller’s budget precisely because they were concerned over the defunding of the Newton Public Schools. The unexpected outcome was that her budget went into effect anyways.
What’s Next?
If you believe that NPS employees deserve a better contract than what the SC has offered them, then you can advocate to the following groups:
- Mayor Fuller (rfuller@newtonma.gov): She is the only one who can provide additional funding for the SC to work with.
- City Council (citycouncil@newtonma.gov): While City Council does not have legal power to increase or reject the mayor's budget, they can apply public pressure for the mayor to provide additional funding to the school.
- The School Committee (schoolcommittee@newton.k12.ma.us): The School Committee, to our knowledge, has not proactively pressured the mayor for additional funding. Whether or not your representative is on the negotiating committee (which consists of Tamika Olszewski, Kathy Shields, and Paul Levy), every member of the SC is responsible for NPS and has the ability to advocate to the mayor.
- The Press: Write to The Boston Globe, the Newton Patch, Fig City News, and The Newton Beacon. Post on social media so the story is picked up while you inform your neighbors.
- Each other: Especially in light of the SC's misleading email, there is a lot of misinformation in the community. Many are likely entirely unaware that negotiations are even occurring. Others may be inclined to accept the SC's accounting of the situation at face value. It's important to ensure that the voters of Newton are well-informed as to the truth and facts of what has transpired over the last year (and beyond) of relations between the NTA and the SC.
If you’re looking for a way to get involved, you can also sign up for the Parent-Educator Collaborative’s email list and attend the Parent-Educator Collaborative’s Community Meeting on this topic:
Wednesday, August 9
8pm on Zoom.
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82541472775
I hope you’ve found this helpful, and I would encourage you to share this essay with anyone who is looking to learn more about the current negotiations situation.
Comments
Post a Comment