During recent negotiations, the Grand Forks School Board dismissed a request from teachers for increased pay for postgraduate credits. Concurrently, educators refused to accept a motion that would exclude social workers and therapists from their union representation. In this third round of talks, representatives from both the School Board and the Grand Forks Education Association (GFEA) navigated through proposals, with several contentious issues remaining unresolved. A significant point of contention arose when district negotiators proposed that the union forfeit its bargaining rights over the grievance procedures of Grand Forks Public Schools, a proposal swiftly rejected by the union.
The district, represented by lead negotiator Amber Flynn, maintained its stance against allowing educators to carry over continuing education credits when transitioning between salary scales. Current agreements feature distinct salary scales for holders of bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degrees, offering additional salary increments for those with postgraduate credits. Many educators pursue advanced degrees while employed, resulting in a shift to a higher pay scale. However, the requirement that continuing education credits reset to zero upon such transitions has been criticized by the union. They argue it may deter educators with substantial credits from pursuing advanced degrees, as the financial benefits may be negligible. Flynn dismissed this concern, citing it as “double-counting” by the union.
In another contentious issue, the union firmly opposed a proposal to exclude social workers and occupational and physical therapists from the teacher contract. The union presented survey data indicating overwhelming resistance from these groups to leaving union representation. Despite district claims that these staff could receive better compensation outside the negotiated rates, the union highlighted uncertainty and potential risks as reasons for retaining the current contract framework. The North Dakota Supreme Court’s recent decision redefining “teacher” under state bargaining laws has intensified the union’s efforts to maintain its inclusive contract terms.
A new proposal from the district sought to eliminate the requirement for mutual agreement between the GFEA and the School Board on grievance procedure modifications. This proposal, intended to align with North Dakota School Boards Association recommendations, was rejected by the union, which emphasized the importance of existing contract protections.
Discussions also included reports on the workload of special educators and compensation for extracurricular activities. Flynn questioned whether bargaining sessions were the appropriate venue for addressing issues like special educator burnout, suggesting the creation of a dedicated committee to advise on such matters. The union has called for increased compensation for special education teachers assuming additional duties outside their job descriptions.
Activities Director Mike Biermaier proposed several updates to extracurricular salary schedules, estimating costs for changes to music and academic contracts. The union echoed support for transitioning from a flat weekly bonus for experienced coaches and advisers to a percentage-based increase. The district, however, declined several union proposals regarding CTE teachers’ work calendars and extracurricular contract issuance, proposing these be governed by district policies instead. Additionally, a proposal to reserve preparation time for middle school teachers was rejected.
The Evolving Landscape
The ongoing negotiations in Grand Forks reflect broader challenges faced by educational institutions balancing budget constraints with educators’ demands for fair compensation and support. The inability to carry over continuing education credits may discourage teachers from pursuing higher qualifications, potentially affecting the quality of education. By not incentivizing advanced learning, the district risks stagnating professional development, which could impact student outcomes and overall school performance.
Furthermore, the proposal to remove social workers and therapists from union contracts raises concerns about job security and adequate compensation for these key personnel. Without the protections and advocacy provided by union representation, these professionals might face challenges in negotiating fair work conditions and pay rates. This could lead to higher turnover rates, affecting the stability and effectiveness of student support services.
The discussions around grievance procedures emphasize the importance of maintaining fair and transparent processes for dispute resolution. Removing mutual agreement requirements could undermine teachers’ confidence in their ability to effectively address grievances, potentially leading to lower morale and engagement. As negotiations continue, the outcomes will likely influence not only local educational policies but also set precedents that could resonate throughout the state’s school systems.