So we can maybe I'm getting there is Good morning, good afternoon. Yeah. Barbara, one of those to get excited. Do not accidentally say good morning. Like you can't even drive. It's crazy. The amount of effort it takes is gotta be exhausting. Yeah. That is such a great picture of you. It's, you, me, it's, no, no. Yeah, it's, sorry. We're working on It. Yeah. There you go. There you go. We're working on it. Okay. Someone thing you'd like. Are we ready More Marette, Marli.
I think we can do it in production because let's do it. Okay. Good afternoon everyone. Good afternoon. Go hold that a little further away. Hello. Welcome everyone. My name is Kayla Mack here in my capacity as a private mediator. It is pleasure to be back with you in session two. After our meeting last week, I think we will go ahead and get started with round robin introductions. This is a great opportunity to address any housekeeping or logistical items that we might wanna touch base on upfront as well when we get to you graphic schedule.
I am gonna start my right. So, Rob, will you get us started? Hi. Good job. Hi everybody. Person. There we go. Uh, hi everybody. Uh, my name is Rob Goul. I'm a, uh, BBS, uh, special education teacher and I'm also the president of the Denver Classroom Teachers Association. Go. Let's, I'm Dana Bergey. I am ECE Kindergarten Architecture Academy. I'm Dennis. I'm currently a high school science and currently enrolled in geology teacher in high school.
Proud to be part of our bargaining. Hi, Amy bca oer. She her hers executive director at Denver Uniserv unit everyone. I'm Michelle Horowitz. She, her and the bilingual speech language pathologist at Brian Webster. Joined co-chair of the DCCA bargaining team. I'm Brian Weaver. I teach X grade math at Florida Valler in the barn northeast. Um, my pronouns are ham and I'm also the co-chair of the DCTA bargaining. My name is Val Mc Anderson. I'm a ECE teacher at Sandra five Williams Academy in the far
north from, and I'm also a proud member of the ING team. Grace, how Hamilton Middle School Special Education Teacher pronouns are she hers. Jane s full psychologist is serve as a student safety program leader. I, I've also heard, hi, my name is Ashley McMullen. I'm a nurse. I'm at, uh, a Compass Academy and Judge Elementary, also a senior team lead. Hi, Amy. She hers. I'm the leader Ofout the Katie Allen.
She, her, her is third grade math science teacher and STL at Florida Waller in the far northeast. Hi folks. Alicia Lee Rhodes. Uh, she her, her, uh, currently a middle school semester education teacher at West Yoga Capitals. Hello. Hi, I am Mari, um, senior Manager Compensation. Hello, Rachel Brown, labor Relations Manager. Hello, I'm Chris Campy, Dean, director of finance, Lawrence Garcia, labor Employee Relations, compliance, compensation. Whoever wants HR 14. Hi, Topher,
Paul. Okay. Thank you all for introducing yourself and again, welcome to session two. As a reminder, last time the parties exchanged a couple of counters or responses around five articles, one in which we reached, uh, tentative region. I believe that was Article 25. That leaves on our agenda for today to return to those initial 16th, 22, 23, and 24 to see what new counters or responses of the respective parties have regarding those as we move forward in our agenda. I believe we've talked about touching upon 9, 10, 12, 14,
and if I'm permitting, getting the article 30 as well. So I'm inclined to sequence these or order these, uh, in alignment with the word specific references. Does anyone have suggestion on where we begin again, the 16, 22, 23, or 24? We are ready. We can send 23, which is our link counter for the third passes for the first round, I believe. Good. With that, can I just say request before we get started? Uh, we're more proposal. Can we pause before presenting
until we can give you the, that everybody sure. You, us in when you're ready. Okay. Apologies. Um, we discovered last time that if I have my duty On this screen in mode, that it will actually show the catches. We could head down to 23 by, um, we are, um, moving to 23 6. We would like to point out that historically marginalized as referenced in two other places in the contract, uh,
both in article 31, 31 and 37, 41, it is also referenced four times in the DPS strategic roadmap. In our current political climate, it is imperative that we don't whitewash our history concerning the past. Not only this country, but also this district has systemic, excuse me, systematically excluded, oppressed, or caused disadvantages to individuals due to factors like race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, religion, disability, or sexual orientation,
resulting in limited access to opportunities and resources. Again, we affirm that historically marginalized this language aligns with our district language. And then, um, moving on to 23 7 1. I'm gonna actually pass this to Alicia Lee. I post, um, I'm here to address, uh, 23 7, which primarily, Uh, deals with dead meaning. Um, 2, 3, 7, 1. Um, we kept our language. In addition, no educator or administrator shall address
a staff member by their dead name. Um, we added some new language, um, because we, we are alarmed about the length of time they can take, can take to complete A DPR. I can certainly say that in my own experience, it actually took longer than 69 days. And during that 69 days, much more damage that occurred both between me and the people discriminating against me and with me with parents because, um, the district and the school did not change my name on school websites did not change my email address, so on and so forth.
So we had mass confusion among parents about who was even teaching their kids. And so that even has massive consequences. Um, I have all I I, I and other educators have been personally attacked, um, because of our transgender status, 'cause of our previous thing, whatever it may be. And that length of time can actively discourage us from going through with the DPR process in the first place. I know I myself had to make that choice whether to file a DPR or whether to not. And my fear of retaliation, given the length of time
that it takes to create or and execute A DPR actively discouraged me from doing so. If over that period of time I took far more abuse than any other being should. Now we proposed, um, an immediate response remedy to this in the interim. Um, not to take the place of the DP process, but to provide extra support and a roadmap for handling these issues. Uh, 2372, our immediate response protocol Upon notification of dead naming
or pro refusal incidents, building administrators must take the following actions within 24 hours. One, document the incident. Two, notify the educator of their right to request association representation. Three, meet with the affected individual to address immediate safety concerns and support gates. Four. Meet with the individual who engaged in deadnaming or pronoun refusal, uh, to address the behavior. Uh, five, implement appropriate supportive measures for the effective individual. All incidents must be addressed according
to this immediate response protocol. So that's our initial steps to solve this problem, to immediately mitigate the harm to what degree possible. Um, then, uh, 23 7 3, uh, debt naming or refusal to use an individual's pronouns may be submitted to the DPS discrimination prevention and response programs or process of the DPR. Um, and 23 7 4 of the complainant may request association representation
at any meeting throughout the DDR process. Um, you would like, you would like to be noticed, noted that not all people who use preferred pronouns are chosen. Names are currently covered in the DDR process because not all are defined technically as protected classes. Um, myself, I changed my name as I'm transgender and my name carries a trauma with it, right? The one I hear every quote. But there are other people in this district who are not part of Greek, uh, protected classes who may have similar trauma
or trauma to the same degree from hearing a name other than their chosen name used, right? That could be related to a number of things. It could be a dead name related to a previous relationship where they suffered abuse. It could be a dead name related to, um, trauma, um, in their history with friends, family, whatever it may be. But if somebody takes the drastic step to change their chosen name, um, for whatever reason, that needs to be honored. 'cause we have to assume best of intent and we have to assume that this happened for a legitimate reason.
Alright. And then 23 8 is agreed upon language, so that will be end 23rd. Are there any questions at this time? Uh, first of all, thank you for sharing the proposal. Thank you for sharing your very much appreciate that. Does anyone have any questions? Anyone ask this? Any questions? Okay. Thank you for that presentation. I'm assuming this will be something that you wanna take back to discuss and review together? That's correct. Sounds good. All right. Where or shall we go next? 16, 22 or 24th.
Let's go, uh, mark. Order. Perfect. Uh, who will be presenting a new response or counter on article six? Uh, we haven't. The next three, Is it uploaded already or is that in process? In process testing. Thank you. Just Don. I see it in the drive now, so I'm hoping everybody's able to access that. We Got it. Thank you. Right, for 16, we accepted the, um, labeling of this paragraph. Personal property. We were not able to accept the increase from $500 to a thousand bucks, but we wanted to point out the other employees had bargain
units had a 350 limit. We already have that as a higher amount of, for ECA, we filled that as a, that was, uh, right. To extend this further, Uh, the labeling of damage to vehicle, we've also accepted that language. Uh, we did not accept the within 500 feet of district app premises. Um, there are certain, uh, responsibility that people go in the car, take it on. And if you are not able to park in the, uh, in the school parking lot, you may know that it's small, sometimes happens to us in central office as well, then you're responsible to finding your own parking. There's no reimbursement which park where
that is not something that we're alone to accept. Uh, same here with the $1,500 instead of 500. The, uh, again, other bargain units have a three $50 money here. So we didn't think it was fair to increase this one, but, uh, so much higher, especially when the other groups are already less than this. Submitting claims were accepted the timing of this paragraph, and we did not accept raising this, uh, from, I'm sorry, the 60 n should be strip out from, uh, 60,000 to $30,000 during the, uh, the agreement. Okay, thank you. There's nothing else to add.
I turn it over to you association and ask if you have any immediate feedback or questions for the district based on this latest proposal. So I heard you say that we didn't feel that it fair to increase this because other units don't have an increase. Everyone is under jail bargaining the moment that we know of. And we also provided evidence that that $500 claim amount is being maxed out most recently this year. Um, so how do we, if every local has an agreement
and we're all marketing at different times, how do we ever increase that amount? Well, you, you make a proposal, but at this point we're not accepting your proposal. And so despite the cost of things going up, that's just not a good enough reason to consider increasing. I know. Well, we also have a fin item amount million to spend in. Uh, we have a lot of other financial things to talk about. And so as part of that discussion that's, I can, I can talk loud if, uh, my question is just whether or not, um, is there a cost, you, you, you said that there's other money that you need to spend money on other things. What is the specific cost to increasing those amounts
To you? Proposal was to increase $30,000. That's the cost. So just the, just the $30,000 is the, that is the only cost associated with it. Is that, what I'm Understanding is, Is the $30,000 cost or is there more on top of that other, uh, insurance or the next that, that is the maximum cost? Well, okay, me currently right now, it hasn't been made out fully. There would be increased cost addition because we haven't reached that maximum. But, uh, it could go up as far as the payments out. So knowing that you haven't used that, those limits in years past, what have you done?
How has that money been utilized? Um, what has it been utilized for? Um, well, I I would actually turn that back around. If we haven't utilized it, then there'd be no reason to have an increase yet percentage because we have not reached those caps. So I just wanna push back. Uh, there is, and a specific example I know of an employee at, in the, the E center whose rear windshield was vandalized in the parking lot during her employment and her deductible for her auto insurance is $700. We know that that dollar amount, the 500 is being maxed out.
Every single case that was actually every claim that was accepted in the last year was maxed out. And so there's reason for us to believe that increasing this with the nominal dollar amount for the, or if you haven't even met the 30,000 to increase, at least the amount per claim seems reasonable. So I appreciate that feedback. That was not proposed. We, we will look to verify if every claim is moving outside. I don't believe that was the case that we need. The chart that we shared at the table last time showed three claims were accepted for a total amount of $1,500
Throughout the rest of the table. Another, there's always on the case, I never guess of, and I can add just a little bit too on how we budget. So while there's a max amount, a lot of the district's budgets are gonna add and flow each year. And so we look at the trends, right? So when we're looking at the cost of acceptance proposal on average over time, uh, especially at things like insurance and our risk items, you're gonna have a year that's high, that's low. And we're trying to manage the districts budget over time, over our five year plans, how we meet the forecast, right? So we're looking at this proposal both
a higher amount per claim as well as the maps per year. And not, it's, it's not a, if we were under one year, where did that money go? We're budgeting kinda on that average trend, then we forecast throughout the year, some budgets meet the top, others are below, and we update our forecast as we go. So I hope that helps. I know it's not part of why, especially with fore ground, be really careful with our limited resources. And so, uh, you know, we wanna be very deliberate on where we increase the costs.
So the total costs to the district over the past 6 0 5 and a half years was $16,000. So just trying to work through where we go next. We're looking at the maximum amount per contract. Three year period is 30,000 on this article already. That's agreed to some language, correct? That's the current language, yes. And that's the number that you're kind of anchored onto in terms of the cost compared to other items in our contract. Well just talked about the budgets not being number
so that, Any other Questions or comments? Just a clarifying question. Is there a cost to increasing the $30,000 limit? Yeah, I mean that it certainly rises to the maximum level, and then if more plans are turned in, then it would increase the iveness. So I mean, in, in Article 15, 2 4, I guess what's bothering me about this and, and this is just feedback to take back, is, um, you know, it talks about the space in the, in the parking lot at each fully reserved parking,
when the district is unable to provide off street parking s to every effort will be made. And so, you know, I think part of the issue we're running into is, and, and it could be due to, um, you know, there's specific buildings, specific places where, um, I know for example, my wife's, uh, building name, they often have to park on the street. Um, so I think the, that piece around the 500 foot, um, component, is there an issue with that around insurance or is it strictly just like, is there a, is there, I'm,
I'm wondering if there's a liability piece insurance wise versus just the strip cost. We're, we're, we're self-insured for this, so, and it's not an insurance company mandating this to us. I mean, it, it is the idea you brought up article 15 2 4 about providing parking. All things can be true at the same time as far as parking provided, yet it may not be enough. And then this would kick in for damage within the parking on the district premises. Yeah, I think that's where, um, that's good to know that it's, it is certainly just your, that since it's self-funded, your liability on
that and the cost of that. I mean, and, uh, we'll take that back and, um, go from there. Thank you. Uh, I do want to point out that this is also a fundamental shift. This language, the current language has always talked about on patient premises for as long as I remember it being in this contract. So it's not just a matter of, oh, are you self-insured? Not self-insured. This is a fundamental shift on whether we're gonna do business that we need to examine as well. Well, and I think you're right about that. I do think you need to think about the way that we're doing business because I think we've more, more and more we're seeing that, um, for whatever reason,
if there's more employees than the parking was built for, then that's an issue, right? If it's on the district, if you're not allowed to park on district premises. The other thing that happens quite often, um, at my wife's school is the, there are several parking places taken up by a district, um, you know, by, by district trucks that are coming in and either delivering or they're doing, uh, you know, maintenance and things like that. So those often take up those parking places during the day. They may not stay the entire day. They may be even be only there for a, a little bit. So I think you're right. I i I do think the district needs
to rethink the way that they're doing business on this. And I just want to compliment the good people that come and deliver the food and do repairs in the school because they're doing a lot of work that benefits all of us and our students program. Agreed. Okay. Uh, thank you for presenting that. Are we ready to move on to the United plan? We are. All right, let's pull it up. Can we just ask one other question? What is one of the concerns that maybe we can save this for our counter two? We'll, you sure. Okay, two, Ready. The article 22 was job sharing half time.
Most of this articles already agreed to, one thing we had open was 22 dash one dash five d CT proposed that we add the language that is in read there. Um, we had one little problem with it. That is, that said, the CSC shall review and approve all proposed job sharing. It's not the role of CSC to improve these as they are. Um, they're really, uh, the, the discretion of the building leader. Now, that doesn't mean that they shouldn't review 'em and make sure they're aligned to the established budget priorities. That is the role of the CSCs to establish the budget parties.
So we've accepted most of the language except we struck and approved. So we read the CSC shall review all proposed and existing job sharing halftime assignments. We also wanna make clear during the spring staffing process and, uh, to ensure alignment would be established budget parties based on what budgets are done. And we need to be able to spring for the student and have meeting. So that's why we added that. And other than that, we're, I think we're pretty close to the script. Thank you. Initial questions or feedback on Article 22? Um, Yeah.
Okay. So when CSCs work effectively, um, and in collaboration with the school community, they do approve job sharing. I've seen this happen in my school. Um, and again, part of the DPS strategic roadmap is talking about, um, strengthening the relationship between adult experience and including community and parents and the school community approved his previous language that we would like to retain. So thank you. I appreciate the feedback.
Uh, I do want to point out that being able to improve a job share doesn't define effectiveness about the CSC group. That, that, those two things don't necessarily correlate, uh, the idea here, the CSC certainly looks at the positions that are required for the following year based on the budget. They charge the first documenting groups and all that. I get that piece. What they don't do is they, they say, okay, we have, you know, two math positions, three, uh, social studies positions, what not, or, you know, two third grade positions, three
or four other grade positions, that sort of thing. As far as that's what, that's what they deal with. They don't actually deal with, okay, these two people want to share a position. So we're going to still have that one ft you know, there's three third grade positions, but one of 'em is gonna be taken up by a job chair and then we're gonna have the other two fulfilled. They don't deal with whether or not it's two people filling out one person, that that's solely the personality in principle. That's why we're asking to strike this language, because this language as far as improving doesn't match what's required in law or within any, uh, policy as far as the budget parties. But they're not, they're not meant to battle any day
to day visits at the school. Uh, as far as who, who use the job sharing, that's not, So Lauren, that seems like a fundamental shift for the existing likelihood. She, Well, it is. One's more annoying with what the lies one, the CC has it's supposed to operate. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Shall we go to Article 24? Sure. Ready? Um, we had some, uh, good discussion on this in our last meeting. And, uh, in that time, in our last proposal, we added, proposed adding identities here with 24 dash two dash three, and that was accepted by the association. Thank you for accepting that.
We thought it was important that educators have the right to express our viewpoints and opinions. We also have the right to express our identity via story. You shared with us, the table not lost on this. So that's why we're able to do that. And we appreciated, uh, removing the language that was proposed at below. Uh, the, what we still have here is the word or indoctrinate. So I'm trying to get it without trying to make it better. I'm not trying to make everyone safe. It's hard to get right the bottom of the screen. All right. So for or indoctrinate, we're not, uh, able to strike that. Indoctrinate means to, uh, teach things with the critical lens. And so in order to do what's best for our students, we,
we don't think that the idea of removing that is what's best for students, because the idea is that when things are taught, it should be taught with a critical lens. And, uh, by striking this language, we, we don't think that would happen. We think this also protects people from multiple sides of different arguments. Um, sometimes when viewpoints are the same, you know, political, uh, beliefs as ourselves, we, we don't like this language when it is an opposite political viewpoint that our own then we do like this language as far as if it's being taught by someone as far
as them not being able to indoctrinate teach that incredible remedy. So we think that because this isn't just a one side argument, it is both sides of it really does protect the students and this district as students first. But everything else, that's why we're not able to, uh, strike the psych issue. Can you repeat the definition? You said for what indoctrinate Means, uh, to teach something, uh, without a critical lens. Can you tell us where you found that definition? Uh, looking up different definitions, uh, through, uh, internet. Is it at Oxford or is it a Webster's or just you just Google that
Specific one. We Google it, we get something different. That's Oxford. Oxford. I'm looking at the Oxford definition. It says to teach a person or group to accept a set of beliefs. Uncritically. Yeah. So apologize if I didn't say the exact same words, but that's what I thought I him made me slide. You d we, we think it is important that we teach people, students how least, and we do it within a critical mindset and allow of 'em to choose. And, and, and I don't, I, I find this be a painful thing with, with my own kids.
Like, I try to teach them by try not to like, make it be about my views. And there's times now I'm very surprised that my kids have different views than me or they don't always feel comfortable with it. But I also want them to be their own person and be who they want and figure that out. That's similar. I to figure this inside. And this is something that, um, you don't have to respond to right now, but I just have the question around. Um, so is there a process for dealing with a parent who comes to the school district who can define what is critical or not critical or not critical way of teaching a certain topic?
I would just ask for you all to respond to us with that about who will determine and define or defend when a parent comes and says whether something was topic of a critical or a non-critical lens. Well, if it's an investigation, there's a complaint. We would look at the complaint we investigate. So parents can complain and you'll investigate. A parent can complain and say somebody taught something critically or not critically. And that would be investigated. Well, it depends on the initial information, whether or not it's found to have any potential merit to, we want
that the investigation. And I mean any, any complaint that comes forward, we're gonna take a look at it and see if there warrants for their investigation or that doesn't matter. That's the only process. Any other questions or thoughts? Okay, then we have now gone over the four. We've revisited the four articles that we had touched upon last time. There are several more on our agenda today. Are the parties inclined to stay focused on the four that we just presented? How 'em come back around those? Or would we'd like to also put on the table some of those others at the structure? Do you have any preference?
I think we'd like to try to close these ones out before we make forward sound. Okay, good. That's agreeable. So let's do that process. We're gonna go to those huddle spaces and we'll wait about 15, 20 minutes and I'll come and check in with both parties. Thank you. No, I Available the, the rob. Yeah. Yeah, I, I need him so much. I literally, but I know she give her thought thousand to f*****g thousands percent. You should have told her in February so she could have looked. It happened again. I'm leaving. Oh, it's Amy. I was
Welcome back. I appreciate the opportunity to meet with the respect parties in the huddles and continue working through Article 16, 22, 23, and 24. Um, from this morning, I would like to make a suggestion that we pause for right now, article 16, just based on some of the dialogue and focus on others that we might get a little bit more traction with in moving forward, which would take us to Article 22. So association, can I turn it over to you? Do you have a counter on this particular One?
Just a moment. I'm just getting The, and I need the h Do you have a mic? Lemme know when we got it up. Okay. Uh, let's see. Is this working? Hello? Hello? Hello. Hello. Testing, testing. Can you hear me? Bueller? Hello? Is it me? You want This one? Yeah, that's, Hello. Ready? I didn't listen. Okay. Can you hear me now? Okay, so just, uh, as we've re reiterate and go through this, we've turned the language that we've already agreed to, um, purpose for the purposes
of, uh, passing it back and forth. We did want to just, um, you know, some of the things that we, we, uh, started out to try to do with this, um, was to, you know, have the district set up a specific place on the website. We, we, um, you know, we, the district agreed to put on the commons, you know, while we wanted it to be more specific. We did agree to that. And the next piece down in 21, 22, 1 2, um, we, and this is previously we had a while.
We really wanted the district to help support with matching people. We did relent said, okay, yes. We'll, okay, we will leave it out with the educator to identify those. Um, when it came down to the language in 21, 22, 1 5, um, we really, some of the changes that were in there, we were concerned because DPSS had a long history of, of the CST process of having not just educator voice, but parent voice. And many people don't know this because they have been in DPS as long, um, but it was in 1994 and
before that, when we actually, you know, got some of these, these pilots around CDMs around, um, ladder decision making that eventually morphed into CSCs and others. And through that process, through that, through that 30 plus years of history, um, we have valued not just ECTA value, but TPS is valued parent voice. And so as we looked at the language and we said, you know, is this, um, we felt like that language would limit that parent voice and, and, and we want to hear more parent voice, um, within our, um,
within our contract, within our everyday, just in addition to our educator force force. So we weren't willing to do that. So we're proposing to go back to current language on 22, 22, 1 5. Thank you, Rob. Uh, district, would you like an opportunity to consider this? Do you have a response here at the table? It looks like we're in agreement with everything that 22 1 5, the proposal now is current contract. Yeah, we do, we do have a response. Uh, yeah, we agree, as Rob pointed out to put on the columns, is that is our internal, uh, website spaces the employees. We thought that was mostly convenient in place.
Um, we also value, uh, our parents and input as the CSE language are already all over the agreement. Uh, we do believe that when we're both trying to do new language, it doesn't quite work out. Uh, the default is your current contract language. So with that said, we're, uh, happy to accept this proposal. We thank, uh, DCJ Spear Creativity. You're, uh, you're working through this with us. Okay. Congratulations. You have a tentative agreement. I the next
article that we reviewed this morning and had some time, uh, to sit with this afternoon, some article 23 DPS at meet this one in your report, are you prepared to present something now? Uh, you know, unfortunately we're still working through a few things on there. We're trying to run some ideas, trying to make some, uh, some things that work for both sides, but we're not quite there yet. We're gonna, everything, So we will hold off on that one just for the time being and perhaps circle back to it evening, which moves us. Continuing on to Article 24 and DCTA.
I believe this one was with you. Who, can I turn it over to folder? So this is our controversial issues in the classroom, and, Um, yes, you you're doing great. Yes, there. Hello. Hello. Here we go. Um, wow. We had talked about, um, how the inclusion of the word indoctrinate, Um, is a potential if we're gonna see
how long it lasts time. Um, now let me get my notes up again. Um, so we had originally, uh, agreed to strike 24 dash two dash three dash one and three dash two with the idea of, um, removing the word indoctrinate in the language. And, um, we shared previously that there, you know, it is a problematic political weaponization, the current definition of the word that's being used commonly, um, that is
being used to target DPS educators and the one who, you know, just acknowledge that we all know that language is malleable as we see with our youth who use words like ity, toilet. Um, and this word is currently in flux and this definition is changing. So we also, we feel that using part of the phrase a union unduly influenced does encompass at least part of this definition, um, which is you guys had specified that, you know, it is
not teaching without, you know, allowing for critical thinking. And we have still struck out this, you know, to or indoctrinate. And we've added in what the definition is for, um, indoctrinate to good, to the meaning and need of the matter, um, and included, or to teach students to accept a set of beliefs without critical thinking. And I believe that is the only thing that we have left in this article.
Thank you. Does district, on this latest, uh, counter proposal, are there any questions, immediate feedback, comments? Uh, no question, but we would like to, uh, thank you for their creativity and for their, uh, flexibility on this. And we are, uh, you agree with James. All right. Congratulations with the band. So we have reached in the last 10 minutes, TAs on article 22 and 24, and I really appreciate everybody's hard work and effort going in into that. On our agenda, we had a few other articles for today
that perhaps the parties are gonna have, um, updated counters to the percent. And I'll remind you that on our list was 9, 10, 12, 14, and 30. I think I would like to use this opportunity to invite presentation of at least a few of those at this time to the extent that I would already prepared to present. Does anyone have any preferences or suggestions we are prepared to present? 9, 10, 14. Okay. An 12. An 12. Those. Thank you. And then district is 30 with, with you.
Shall we put all of these on the table at this? Jun that? Okay. Do we wanna do an sequential order or do you have a particular order in how you wanna present your four? Yeah, we have nine through 14. So Bill, go in that order. In that order. Perfect. Who am I turning it over to for nine. Okay, just let me know when it's up. Okay. We're gonna go to the first, um, nine one in here, and apologize, I'm gonna look this way. You not that way. Um, so, uh, in, uh, nine one, we have, uh, the first piece of this, the, there,
there was a, we're we're bringing back the original language on this where it just says at the educators requesting or may be present to review. Um, we agreed previously to the if requested piece and the strike out, uh, uh, educators shall have access their personal file. So we, um, but we wanna make sure that we, uh, retain that language. It, it was, uh, previously within the original piece, um, in nine two, we moved down to that. So We went ahead and, uh, let's see. We agreed to the, the stricken piece. We have added in here this component where it says,
association representation shall be made available at meetings that involve placing material pertaining to an educator's send s file. Um, these are generally meetings that, uh, if it's a corrective action rather, and then we should have, uh, make sure that that, um, educators have access to that 91. Uh, just bringing back this piece of, or anything discovered during the investigation, uh, will be removed. What we see in this, uh, more times than not is we see that, um, an educator, there's an investigation that goes on,
they're exonerated or, um, you know, for whatever, whatever the, the, um, the inquiry was. But then if there are other things that are pulled out there, then used against them in, in different ways. And so we're just making sure that we have this in here, uh, where it says, or anything discovered in the investigation will be removed in that sense. Um, it is our understanding that if there was something that was, um, you know, deemed an additional, um, investigation, then go a different route. But that would be something that we would need to have within that language piece. Uh, 9, 2 2. We've already agreed to nine three as we move down.
Um, we just kept in here. Uh, we, we've agreed to this language around the educated written response must be submitted, but, we'll, you know, educators are busy and we want to make sure that they have the time they need. They may not be able to, uh, you know, they may need some processing time. They may need to, to put their thoughts together. And so we want to make sure they have those 20 dates back in. I wanna, yeah, sorry, I'm just reviewing. In nine four, we accepted the designee. We wanted to make sure that the supervisor was in there
as well, in case it was a SSP or somebody who centrally signed nine five, um, added in, you know, we brought back that piece where it says we'll be reviewed and eliminated as long section charity. Jerry does not interfere. Um, does not excuse, does not relate to this. The safety, physical and mental health of children. If the district retains the material, they must inform the educator what material will be retained and provide the educator with a rationale for their retaining of the material. So that is a, you know, we were okay with these changes that were made in there, but we wanted to make sure it had this copy in there.
Um, so we have some explanation around that because, um, more times than not, it's, it's unclear why something was going to the product. And then, uh, I believe the other one we had here was nine seven agreed to, uh, obviously we got the house down piece. Then down below we have crossed out that except for central office first time, what questions Mike have? Thank you, Rob. Uh, what does the view have any feedback? Yeah, can you question? Sorry, at the beginning? Yeah, keep going down. Please. Please. All right.
So says, association representative shall be available at all meetings while placing material into, uh, educators central office file. Um, if there was anything derogatory, corrective action, anything like that association representative representation would be provided. What if in the case that somebody is getting something, you know, just accommodation, something positive would work in the file that would not require association representation under this language. Would it be permissible to give something like that without association representation? Is that, and so then a question on that? Yeah, so the idea would be that it is, you wouldn't necessarily have to have 'em there,
but you can, you they would be, we would, we would make sure associates representative would be available, which you wouldn't have to necessarily have. Wait, can, can you help me language a little bit? Thank you. Your answer where it says shall be available Yes. At all meetings. So does that mean they don't have to be, I I don't, I don't really quite understand. Well, I think on this one we were looking at, at the, um, we want to make sure that we have somebody there. If, if somebody is, if, if, um, it wasn't necessarily about, um, whether or not they had that, but it was more about, and, uh, making sure you're available.
Michelle interviewed has some thoughts on that. Within the context of this article, we're talking about material originating within this group, which is disciplinary in nature or negative in regard to educator's conduct or character or personality within the context of this Article. So my, my last question was about the context was about shall be available at all meetings. I wanna know what shall be available means I know what shall be at all meetings, meeting, I don't know what shall be available at all. Meetings. Meetings, yeah. So it means given
The option, neither If the educator wants, oh, so if the association is invited and then they cannot make it, does that count as being a bed? I mean, as the association? We'll make sure somebody's done. Yes, Rob said, as the association, we'll make sure someone is there. Okay. Then in 9, 2, 1, have a question about anything discovered during the investigation. So if something is discovered during the investigation that leads to corrective action based on that discovery, are you saying that the corrective action cannot go into the personnel file?
So what we're saying there is we've seen indicators that go through an investigation, they're exonerated from that investigation, right? But then additional issues that were unrelated to that investigation are now being brought and put in. So we're talking about materials that are unrelated to that investigation. Um, and, and a lot of times, um, we see this with our educators that, um, it's, it is something my errors of my investigation piece, but then there's everything and, and is brought out to, to make that educator look like,
you know, that, that they have, that they have some sort of other culpability to this and that's not, uh, you know, we wanna make sure, like if it is related to the complaint that it's made, it is then that then makes sense. Right? But if it is a piece where it's not related to the complaint, then we wanna make sure and keep those two things separate because those are, we wanna make sure that, um, we are following the process of that, around that specific complaint. So if something is not related to the complaint but is brought up in the investigation, it's a clear violation of word policy, are you saying then
that we wouldn't be able to protect his issue, corrective action in that case? So we're not saying that No, we're saying that you would initiate a new process and you would go through a different process with that, but it is, but in terms of that, with, with what that specific piece that was complaint effect, that's, or the concern I should say, right? May not be a complaint, might be a concern or it might be something that, that happened there, but it would be that we're trying to separate those two things out. So then we would not be allowed into this proposal, but corrective action the folder without a new investigation. Right. But what you need to understand is,
like DPS should not have more powers than police. Okay. Police, they can't, you know, they don't do a broad search, right? If they have a search warrant, they have a search to look at something that's going on, they don't have a broad, um, you know, they, they can't look back, you know, years and years unless there's probable cause for that. But, but in this situation, what we're seeing is our educators are actually, um, you know, they're being there, there's all sorts of other things. It might be something that is completely not related to even the original concern, but if it is brought up through the investigation, I doc,
I'm not talking, going back years and years and years talking, brought up through the investigation, that's not good for kids and we need to take action on, we need to be able to take action. Yeah. And I understand. So if it is something that is not good for kids, then we have a policy around that we would go do that. If we're talking about things that are unrelated to that specific piece that are un, that are not, or not detrimental to students, not that, you know, not what I'm talking about is like, um, give an example. Um, I'm sure we can think of a couple other ones, but you know, there's a, there's a concern about the, the, uh, educator coming in late.
Um, and then something is brought, brought up from the educator's past like, oh, you know, you, you forgot to, uh, you know, you didn't close out these grades, or you didn't do this, or you didn't do that. And somehow that's brought into a, a different piece of it. Now, obviously that doesn't have any effect on students. Makes sense, right? But it, and it is unrelated to the first concern. So we wanna make sure that we keep those students separate. Well, none of the students' grades does have an effect on students, but it could have coding if that, what I'm Lawrence, I'm not quite sure where you're, where you're going with that, but, um, that's the proposal where we're at.
And if you have a different question around it, I can try to answer a different question. Well, I think you answered that we could do corrective action unless we related to the initial charge's. What understood, I think what we're looking at is, um, a, a clean investigation. Yeah, I think that's a good way to put it, is, um, if it is something specific about something that a teacher's doing, you investigate that you go through that, but you don't drum up. There is unrelated things that don't have anything to do with that specific piece and concern with that. Well, no, I, I appreciate that.
I, to be clear, this is about driving up to anything. This is about giving the investment other information was found out that is important. Alluded to policy both. Yeah, we, we look forward to your, uh, response in that, in that we're, what we're trying to solve for, right? Is this erroneous stuff that comes up that doesn't have anything to do with the, the educator or student safety. It's just things that are piled on that don't have anything to, you know, that it's, it is basically you're fishing for other other reasons, right.
Takes months too. And also taking months to find out. That's a great point because like to take exception of that as far as you, you're accusing us, they're of fishing and trying to do something on our employees. That's not all, well, that may not be what the intent is on your side, but that's the experience of our educators. We have any additional questions? So why, strike out the last sentence there. The district have the expense responsibility material should be retained. Yeah. So what what we did was we struck out that last sentence, but we replaced it with the sentence above.
Yeah. But without the district having the right to determine whether it should be retained, then who does? So the, so part of it is that yeah, the district retains, so go ahead. Um, the district is retaining this, but we, we want to know why that's the key. Right now, as this language stands, the district will have the exclusive responsibility to determine whether or not the material should be retained. But the district doesn't have to give the educator any reasoning why. And so what we're trying to do is we're saying, yes, you can still do that, but you need to provide reason why
that you didn't remove why, what was the, you know, if a if an educator is going, is going out their way to request this material be removed, then you need to provide a reason why the, the reason already have the language. It relates to the safety for school of all the children. So I think you need to, we need more specific around that. How does it, how is that detrimental? How is it looking at, because what our, what our educators are experiencing isn't necessarily that piece. They're, you know, they don't have any information of
of why it's retained or why it's not. And and specifically around, um, you know, something that happened A long time ago and why is this still retained in this piece? Is it a piece of, you know, I understand what you're saying with this. We able related to the civil, clinical safety and mental health children, but we want to be more specific about how that, you know, I, I get that and I, I just want to, you added the word detrimental, but that that's one of this language, it just relates to the physical safety,
safety, physical, mental health children. But I think I understand your, thank you. Yeah. And I guess I would just say, you know, what we're trying to push for is, is like we believe in accountability, but we believe that accountability goes both ways. Questions? Okay. Thank you for the presentation. I appreciate the questions and the answers provided. If no one has anything else on nine, I am ready to go to the next one. Ted. Hey, have a question. We, another question. Sorry, can you put it back up? It's nine. That five that is the question that I just regards to the reviewing
after the three years reviewing of the materials and then determine what is eliminated, who's responsible for them. Can you repeat the question? So now dash five, when we talk about three years, the information in the personnel file is needed and then eliminate. If I said who's responsible for doing that? Well, I guess I would ask you the same question 'cause that that's currently, uh, within our language and so we're trying to figure out, I mean, it would be HR is my understanding. So HR would, would go in and it requested
and say, Hey, I would like to have this eliminated from my client Request. Is That That's correct. Language upon requested the educator. Okay. The question that I'm having is, so you make a request, the information is reviewed, you are going to, the employee is going to say what? Like if there's corrective action in the file per se, they're going to let HR or whoever know that that's one thing of the request gonna be removed. Yes. Not all item, particular item,
Whatever the educator writes in the request. Okay, thank you. And I apologize that I missed you. Uh, holler at me if I missed anybody else. Does anyone have anything additional in article nine? Okay, I'm happy to have a move to article 10. I turn it over to you. Okay, thank you. Good to see you again. Um, Chris, can you hear me now? Uh, I just wanna thank the district for, um, their thoughtful proposal. I think we found a lot of spaces where we, um, a in this articles, uh,
hopefully can make quick work of this. And I am going to base this direction. So, um, there's a lot of verbal language. This is all accepted TA language. We did accept ten one two, um, and accepted your language from corresponding and content for, for ten one three. We understood that we don't wanna necessarily name who is in what groups, but did add the language around the acronyms there.
Um, just so we can clarify who, uh, what each group, what each true means or what did she acronym means. Um, and we agreed with the cross out of 10. One four, um, ten two, two, one Accepted the language of each evaluation system. Spanish guide. We heard that June wasn't necessarily, um, a good time was not good timing. So opted for October 1st as a possible
date for the fairness guide, uh, for ten two two two. Um, we agreed with the cross out language there, but did add that the district would notify the respective CC for any changes made to fairness guides being that they are, um, just making sure that we're not changing the goal post. Um, accepted to 2, 2, 3, 2, 2 4. Everything was good down to 10. 2, 3, 1 accepted that. However, we did cross off, uh, the growth and performance team and brought back that language
of the peer observer team. Uh, and ten two, three two, uh, brought it back. That idea of bringing back, um, the option of a peer observer and senior team lead. Oh, and yeah, and the, an observation, um, a lot of accepted language down there corresponding. And then down at 10, 2 5 added, uh, the entity report should be completed in collaboration with the educator, educator's, coach, evaluator and supervisor.
Um, we heard, uh, heard you in regards to the lobbying underneath the supervisor as well. Accepted ten three twelve, accepted the cross off there as well as ten three one three accepted your language there. A lot of acceptance all the way down to ten three, two, six central office managers. We accepted that language and then cross off managers as they seemed to be the same thing. That's a bit redundant and added. Appropriate fairness guides, Uh, again, I'll accept it all of your language there
for the rest of those definitions down to PIP changed, uh, educator back to teacher on ten three three one and added that a pet shell only be used, uh, with non missionary educators. Um, accepted the language around support plans. Added back the word when in eligibility observations simply for grammatical purposes and added other process at the end for the gather data.
Gather, prepare. I'm trying to find, go quickly to the definitions. So get to the we of N ten three three five accepted at cross out, accepted the cross out of a full observations and added the N grammatic under part four annually observation or evaluations accepted. Ten four one annual orientation being where we get all the information regarding leap. Again, 10, 4, 2, 1 to about educators, about teachers saying that LEAP support teachers
and accepted all the other language there did add in our just lead in our language regarding ten four two four highest score. Each indicator for all formal score observations will be used. Calculate means used, uh, for the professional practice shall go towards the overall rating. Ten four three except that language. Ten four, three, two, educator back to teacher. Ten four. Three three heard uh, the concern around three days and changed that to
2 4 10. Four four, um, brought back the language regarding these support plans. We are open to, um, seeing what you all will talk to counter in regards to the support plan process this from the comments. So, uh, we really appreciate all the work that the district has done around support plans and supporting our, our teachers in that regard. We just wanna make sure we have that which, okay. Mario changes. Oh, that's, sorry. 4, 4, 7.
No, one of the reasons, uh, we just wanted to specify like, one of the reasons we, we, like, we really appreciate when the district has done with this language around in terms of making sure that there are support plans for educators. Because in the past what would happen so many times was, uh, you would get a, a, a, a probationary teacher that wouldn't have any idea of why they were being nominated. And so we think that this, the, the process of the district has developed is a, is a good process that can actually do two things. Number one, provides documentation, or if they do have to have non arad teacher,
but it also then does provide and says, you know, you, you are provided supports. And that's what LEAP is meant to be about. It is about providing supports. It's about providing the coaching and the growth. Um, so many times our educators have felt that leap was punitive. And this is one of those measures that we feel like is, is really being put in to make sure that those, those things happen. So, you know, we, we, we feel like the district has done the right thing. We are concerned about if there is a change in leadership at some point, and that, and that the leadership would go back
to some of those previous practices of not actually documenting anything for our probation educators, not supporting them, and just saying, thanks for being here. Thanks for the year. Bye-bye. Um, that's not the right thing to do because educators, they, you know, as much as we think they grow ENT trees, they don't, we don't have a teacher tree to pull for. So just want to make sure and accentuate that point. And that's a good point. That brings up ten four, four seven, which is changes to the process be made in collaboration with the LCC, um, or the N-A-I-C-C as it were.
Um, can we scroll to C ten four? Four seven, sorry. No worries. Thank you. Um, Let's see. Ten four five. One accepted that eligibility, but then added it, uh, added the evaluator shall include the recommendation of peer observer when determining if expectations of the pivotal mat at the end, um, crossed out. Alternatively, in ten four, five two, one, a teacher is eligible for the data gather period.
Um, I do believe that is already in the definitions and a bit redundant. I can recall, uh, scrolling down accepted language there did add in a significant pattern of performance. And, um, that is, and that was the language, right? It was taken from the comments from the, yeah, from, from all of that hard work that you wanna have done around it.
That's where we got, um, did add that piece back in at the end. Uh, if at any point the coaching or evaluation process, principal supervisor designate he, was it necessary for an educator to be placed on a pip, they will work with the peer observer in writing plan, implementing and administrative the coaching cycles, providing supports and added, uh, that pattern of performance concerns again, uh, regarding professionalism to develop or accepted, sorry, accepted that objection. Take that out for
ten four. Five four. Um, reject the language of senior specialists and performance management and left the original language of para observer. Ten four. Five five please. So I also just wanna reiterate, um, in with the development of the performance improvement plan, um, this was part of the original intent of, you know, when we set up years ago, this was actually back in 2009, um, when, you know, as part of the concessions that we did in 2008 around, um, pro comp,
and then eventually of course, history. History, we know where that then. But, um, as part of that piece in 2009, we wanted to really develop a peer assistance at the review type of program. We want to make sure like, um, the peer observer, who is the peer maintains and continues in this position because this is one of the most viable things they do. I also think, um, it was important that, uh, teachers and peer observers and, um, folks, we, we like the idea of the ex experts being there, right?
Um, except the language of ten four or 5, 5 3, everything looks good down to 10, 4, 5, 6 9, where again, score and each indicator will stand as part of the interview calculation accepted ten five one, other than including access two. And then the NI framework and fairness guide was added ten five two by that language with the purpose of,
uh, and framework. I, I then wanted to just make sure that we had that language for the training. And, um, let's see, accepted ten five three two cross out. Ten five three four ten five three, ten six. One added S-S-P-G-P-S Handbook of Fairness guide. Can you, ten five, five three right there. Three. Three What? The floor is that? Uh, ten five. Three three. Yeah. Feedback meetings.
Oh, should a occur attending the honor following the observation, um, with it suggests being 10 days, so we just align that to leave instead of the 15 days. Thank you. That nobody does. Let's see. Uh, ten six one. Uh, let's see. I spoke on that in the fairness guide. Um, accepting ten six two, ten six three. Um, uh, yeah, to either actually or, got it. They're gonna speak to the S-S-P-G-P-S. Hello.
Hello. Hi. Ashley McMullen, still nurse, senior Team Lead for nursing. Um, we just wanted to review, uh, this article for SSP evaluation. So one, we did have a few changes this year. We have MSOs now measure of student outcomes. Um, I will say thank you to the district as well because we did have some training that we received through, um, learning space, um, to help us better understand what MSOs are. Um, currently,
let me get back to this. And, okay, we are on ten six three, I believe. Yep. So we have ten six three where it says these are discipline specific and can be located on the DPS internal website under the S-S-P-G-P-S. So just making sure that we have access to the frameworks, which it is there currently, um, educators on centrally managed teams shall be evaluated using criteria appropriate to their specialized roles and responsibility. Um, with that being said, we have
multiple teams such as, uh, the bilingual assessment team, but we do have multiple providers on that team. And not all of our MSOs or our frameworks currently align with work that they do. Uh, so that's why we included this so that they can have, um, more appropriate measure of student outcomes and criteria that they're actually able to meet for effective or distinguish based off of their specialized team. We did wanna add the observation requirements of coming an evaluator.
Um, and ESSP shall have a minimum of five years holding a similar position and licensure in school setting. Uh, all evaluations of SSP shall be completed by the designated special service provider team or manager within their respective department. With that being said, currently at the, at, um, off be for nursing at this moment, um, if we're not in a building more than three days, then we're evaluated by a senior team lead or our manager. But if we are in a building three days
or more than we are evaluated by a building leader or a dean, which truly as we're being evaluated, we should be evaluated by the experts in the field. Um, I would never want to evaluate a teacher because I'm not doing their work consistently and I'm not the expert in teaching fifth grade. Um, so we're just asking that the experts in our field are the ones who are completing the evaluation so that they have a fair and equitable evaluation.
Evaluators don't have a documented history of working within the school study for a minimum of three years, and overall evaluation, rating of meeting or dis. So we did ask for that because, um, we do have some members who may not work in the same setting, so they may not understand the nuances over the day to day job. Um, and if they don't have experience in doing that, it can be a little bit tough to actually give feedback and coaching. Um, and then coaching for all SSP shall be
provided by the team lead or manager. And it is, we probably should put, um, special service provider team lead there, but we can change that. We did expect language for the, in 6, 10, 6 or three from the district with the one informal observation shall occur prior to the conversation. And the second observation shall occur prior to the end of the year conversation. Um, ten six, four six,
sorry, I went too far. Ten six, four five. Um, we did change from three to two school days for an SSP to be notified that they're gonna have an observation. Um, just giving them enough time to know that they have to prepare, be observed. And then we accepted the rest of the language words, 1 6 4 6 and struck out ten six five. Any questions about the S-S-P-G-P ps? Okay. Yeah, I, I do have a couple questions on the SP section since we're
there and you asked, so thank you. Uh, keep going, Brenda. Uh, the, at least two school days prior to the observation occurring, um, you, you also use language to prepare. I'm curious as to what needs to be prepared. So, and I ask, I ask this all seriousness. 'cause you know, I don't know your work necessarily, and so I want know, 'cause for teachers, they're notified the Thursday or the week before that, the following week have an observation. So this is a, a difference. I'm asking why the difference should occur.
Yeah, so we have a few different things that are going on in our SSP world. So we're not always assigned. We have building five days a week. So occasionally you have to switch your days. I'm at a school where I'm in the building two days a week, and then I'm in another building one day a week, and then I'm senior team late two days a week. So my schedule can shift. So as long as I know that my evaluator is coming to observe me on a certain day, then I make sure that I'm in building so prepared that I'm there. Um, because again, I mean, I can have,
I'll use this week for an example, uh, we have a short week and I have to change my schedule around. So then I can do, um, build trip signups yesterday, bargaining today, which is when I would've been in for one of my schools. And then, um, making sure that I'm attending IEP meetings for Thursday, which is my scheduled team meeting day. But now I'm doing it for the different schools. So it's just making sure that I'm prepared, that somebody's coming to my building and that my evaluator's not showing up and I'm not in the building. So that's part of the preparation. Yeah, of course.
I can also just add that you wanna make sure that your observer, somebody's coming to observe you when you're not doing your documentation right. They need to come before specific, like, like to come observe your IEP, I'd like to come observe therapy. Those are different components, our framework that need observation throughout the year, depending on what going in. Thank you. We have a follow up question. You have follow up Now? I have a follow up question. Is I'm, I'm just a little confused about the, um,
switching from three days to two days. Because if you're asking to be given more time in order to prepare, wouldn't three days actually give you more time than two days? Yes, it would be, I believe that was language that was struck up by the district. Possibly we were up outside to align it with the week being notified like week before the observ. Yeah, week Thursday before the observation We could look Into it. Yeah. Okay. If, yeah, that would be great. I mean, I, I just really didn't understand.
Um, another question that I did have about the SSP section, I'm trying to find it. Um, but you probably know better than I, you can probably rattle it off, but the section about, um, who does the evaluating and what I'm wondering is where those bodies come from. So in the for instance where, um, an SSP is in a school more than three days a week, and then like the principal is responsible or they assign someone else. Um, so knowing that the preference would be to have somebody who is within your field. Where do those folks come from?
Yeah, they would've to come from our department. Your central office department? Mm-hmm. Yeah, our central office. Do you I no. Are is there current capacity currently? No. We have 17 leads for 140 nurses. I can't speak for other departments, but I do know that there's many, um, people in the mental health department that would also be a complain. Okay. And so yeah, we would have to work on hiring more or central office. Oops. Okay. Yes.
So for context, the speech language department has 12 team leads. You can hear me the, for context, the speech language department is completely evaluated by team leads. We have 12 team leads to evaluate the department about the equal size to other nurses have. And so they spend two, two and a half or three days by tingling. And then to answer your question about why they moved from two to three days and we were just simply responding to the district, striking out the second
sentence completely. The red section was spoke out by the district. So if you have a calendar that aligns better with leap, we are open to hearing it. Did, did I hear you correctly that, did I hear you say that there's the same number of SLPs as nurses Approximately did. Appointments are relatively similar size. Did I know about a double? Thank You all. Do we wanna continue with the presentation? Okay. Okay. Okay. So is mark seven, um, good. Um, part eight in the redress process, we went back
to the language of, um, we accepted they believe, but went back to the language of more than just the computational error. Um, but actually having a professional practice rating, um, decision, uh, or rating being incorrect in light of the body of evidence. And the same with the final rating in light of the body of evidence. Um, and then adding the process for the PIP for plaintiff support was not followed or led, led to a non renewal.
I accepted ten eight two, I'm sorry, ten eight. 4 2 2 Changed. 10, 8, 5 1 1 to educators or brought back educators, but not, except at 10, 8, 5, 3, 1. And I'm kind of going quickly 'cause I know there won't be questions. So, um, the same with ten eight, five, three, six and ten eight, five, three nine. I think we just missed a couple of educator versus teacher verbiage there. Accepted ten eight, five five, one, ten nine, one
brought back that idea of the NII CC being able to again, work collaboratively around the NII framework being that it is different and separate from me, uh, cut that language in a list of duties for the ccs, uh, review and revise multiple measures and are cut points. Review and revise the methods for calculation. Create and review evaluation system surveys accepted, be revised for redress, create
and review appropriate feedback mechanisms for evaluators. Review and revise evaluation frameworks. Create, review and revise the development of a modified process for novice teachers as we're able create, review and revise the evaluation process for the highly effective pathways. We accepted review consideration, any change of the F framework. Added review of advice through a respective fairness guide, which was an actual language that we didn't get in here, I think, or that's language Drew accepted, um,
added, or sorry, accepted the, um, cross out consider creating US data pathway manually be highly effective pathway pilot and added, collaborate with other ccs as needed. Review the plan of support of PIP data process of, uh, for possible recommendations. Solicit language changes to the dependencies for specialized groups, including but not limited to a CE and CTE, um, accepted 10 94, 10 95. Uh, the association will meet
and cross out given the opportunity to provide with writing the superintendent to provide the recommendations. Cut that. And that brings us to questions. Thank you, Chris, Ashley, and others that contributed to that investigation is is a big one. Yes. Uh, but that was a thorough presentation. Mr. I know you're gonna need some time to sit with this, but while we're here right now, do you have any initial questions for clarification throughout the, that I do and we, I don't know if we have to find it, just 'cause it's such a long article, not easy to find, but Early on in the presentation class about how, uh, pip, uh,
was only to be used for non probationary educators. And I was curious about that language and why. Yeah, I think we looked at a couple of things. First, the PIP claims, but we're currently using when it comes to probationary teachers and then pi, uh, was in process. Um, and I believe we took that language from the comments and the support plan and PIP process, um, language that, that the district has right now. Okay, thank you. The then in the, uh, where we just worked toward the end as far as the conditions
for a, um, the, um, where, where it's, if there's a miscalculation of the score or Yeah, as, as far as being able to redress mm-hmm. Yeah, the rigorous process. Yeah. Um, it, it says there as far as if the, um, the performance approval plan of support plan led to a non-renewal, non probationary teachers cannot be non-renewed. So curious about that language there. Um, What's the process? Yeah, Yeah. So the, the process for pip.
Yeah. Um, so the, so the process pip, this is on ten eight, four one, this, I think that's what you're referring to, right? That that's correct. Um, the process for the PIP where the plan of support was not followed and led to a non-renewal. So, um, where, you know, the reason we have obviously the plan of support believe in the non-renewal piece, but then as we're thinking about this, we thought, okay, the process for the pip, but the process for the PIP wasn't followed, you know, then that that should be a reason to read addresss that and take a look at it as well. But there's the additional condition
that led to a non renewal. So, yeah, I mean, I think Go Ahead. Yeah, I was just gonna say in the language for the support plan, it also says that, um, in the language with support plan, that it talks about following that process for non renewal. And so if the process was to follow, then It should to, right? But it also says PIP there, pips don't lead to non-renewals of your proposal if they're only for non, right? But, but the way we have it written there is, is the, the process for the pip, that's the first piece of that.
And we can split those out if it's better. Um, but then you have the plan or was not popular, but that's the second condition. So there's is a, there's e either or if, if it makes it more clear, we can definitely separate those two pieces so that, that they're not, 'cause I think what your question is are, are they, is one contingent on the other? That wasn't the intent. No, we certainly need some parenthesis to show which, uh, which was first the, or at the end. Yeah. Yes. What is my clearly just service
my pizza, by the way. There are funny pizzas outside you haven not match. But moving. Another, another question in the, um, appeal process talked about change that from teacher to educator, I believe the appeal process is only for teachers or teachers. Is that one we need to go back from? I believe so, correct. We're trying to make sure Gross. We you wanna speak to that? Yeah, Honor, Don't look each other, I I don't think it comes in agreement
yet on the non probationary status issue for, for CT educators and for education. So the appeal process is laid out in state law for teachers. It's not. Right. And so we're, we're asking, I mean, so The, the proposal that we've had we're, we're not settled on that yet, is what we're like, we're not settled on article 39. Yeah, I know. I'm not talking about your proposal, I'm talking about the state law that identifies the appeal
for a second, second effective evaluation. But this specifically to these teachers, We're asking for it to apply more broadly. Exactly. The reason we have educator here is because we believe that they should apply more broadly than just hurts teachers. From my notes was the reference article 39 there? Yes. Other about this proposal on Article 10. Okay. Can I provide a math equation related to team leads? Yeah, please. For SSP, so most SSP team leads do coaching and evaluation and observations two days a week.
And so to add five more team leads for nurses would be the equivalent to FTE. And those are SSPs with the department that are doing the evaluations. Okay. Thank you again for everyone that contributed to the presentation on Article 10 ECTA. I still believe the next one is going to be presented by you as well. Article 12. So before we get started, I just wanna state that our proposed language aligns with the values of inclusion and the student experience.
So looking specifically at two dash one, we to strike the phrase Endeavor two. In the DPS strategic roadmap, the student and educator experience is referenced quite a bit. Um, and on page 30 specifically, and we quote, we will hold each other accountable to know and do better. In our opinion, the district needs to do more than endeavor, but actually be accountable for providing the resources needed for educational programs to begin the school year so that every learner arrives.
Um, so again, in two, one but not limited two, we'd like to retain that language that we proposed as well as before the beginning of the school year. And then in the second bullet of two, one, we are proposing students and then retaining our proposed language for special, for specialized services. The district will provide sufficient additional materials or services provided in Spanish for all students who receive instruction or intervention in Spanish.
And then the language, um, in the third bullet is reiterated for what we have proposed educators who do not receive relevant curriculum materials from their departments and our schools shall be reimbursed for the cost incurred to provide instructional materials for their students. We have agreed to strike the additional language in that bullet, and then we are proposing to retain that last bullet,
the language that we went from most. And 2, 2, 1, 1. Um, we are striking your proposal for providing a recommendation to the principal for an equitable distribution. And then, sorry. Um, and again for 2 1, 1 and Rob spoke about this, um, just retaining that language about CSC, we are comfortable with the current contract language because it directly implements the strategic vision
of United the entire DPS community in meaningful ways that respect the voices and contributions of all stakeholders. Again, on page 18 of the strategic roadmap, it states, every learner thrives when we build an adult experience that invigorates and unites the entire DPS community team, DPS families, community and members. As one dps going down to 12 dash four, um, we are proposing to run this language back
because educators should not be financially responsible for devices and assessment materials that the district requires. We use to meet legal, legal mandates for our students individual learning needs, we have agreed to strike 12 dash 4 1 12 dash four two and 12 dash four three and then moving down to 12 dash four five. Um, we are proposing to change
shall to may, but again, bringing back this language, um, because we wanna honor the current process that the district provides for educators. And that's it for this article. Thank you. Valerie. District, having heard the most recent counter on article 12, are there any initial, excuse me, and initial questions or comments On the, uh, two-factor authentication at the very end of that article? Um, it is my understanding you did some research on this and you could access the two-factor
authentication on your computer. So I'm curious, has the need for security team, oh, How would we do that? Well, we, we can look at that, but that's our understanding. Hold on a second. I wanna make sure everybody can hear one person. It's time. I it makes sense because it's like you're using two different items. So I authenticate your right. So how could you use your, how do you use your computer to do two authentic authentications? So I was gonna clarify if I may. Um, so the, the, we have to use our phones
to unlock our computers to access any DBS website. So we couldn't use our computer to unlock our computer. Does that make sense, Lawrence? Um, we'll look at that. Yeah. Okay. I think it also depends on, uh, my understanding of the, and my understanding of the two back off thousand 50 came up. So that five best, that's what that, what what Dana said is that you would have to utilize an email to do that. And so if you are, you know, if if there's a different method besides email
to do the two back off ation, then let us know that because it's, you know, that's where if you're getting into the systems, you would have to get either sent an email on your phone, um, or on, on some other method, some other electronic funds, but correct if we're wrong. Okay. Yeah. We'll, we'll, we'll definitely look at that information. 'cause we've got the multiple ways I think. I think you can, we went through email like you was saying, like I know that my staff, there's some people that have forgotten their phones, they had to go
to the office and the office was able to go through that process, but they weren't able to do it on their computer at, well, I think that the bottom line is we don't need to add more into educator workload. And so we really ideally, like have an efficient way to get into these systems that are applied to do our jobs. If you ever work there an internet outage, there's no possible way to do our jobs at this limit. So if you don't have access to what you need, this is one workaround for folks who are not able to use their phones that we would like
to make sure folks know about. If You have an internet outreach notice, this is great. It's just an example of how on the internet is all I'm saying. No, I get that, but none of this works. But internet, how that happen, I don't think you understood the point I was trying to make. I don't think you understand the point I'm trying to make. Alright, Moving right along. Keep us both and saying in addition on article 12, are there any other substantive questions from the district? Okay, thank you, Mr. I'm again gonna turn it over to you. Article 14th, Ashley.
All right, are we looking 14? Does everybody have it open? Is it, we it's not on the board yet, does it? On computer? Well, some of us have around four days ish, but through school. And then we'll be entering summer school and we're gonna be talking about summer school and evening and Article 14. So, All right, article 14 is regarding summer school and evening full and achieving goals. Um, as you'll see throughout
this article, we do have a tentative agreement on accepting of words, um, teaching the educator to be more inclusive so that you'll see that turn to purple. Um, we're retaining original language for the and evening school just to allow for any potential future possibilities that occurred. We have accepted your proposed changes in 14 1 1 2, and we're retaining the original language of an ex
and an explanation of the selection process because we do believe we retain the right to have applications and notification of position selection. We are retaining our proposed language in 14 1 1 4 and added who applied prior to April 15th because educators should know what their assignments are in order to prepare for summer plans. And also we don't want students that is now on quality educators because educators, um, we're not notified in a timely manner. Um, the 14 1 2,
we have proposed that, um, educators will receive compensation for summer and evening work at a minimum grade as specified in part of code 28. Uh, we will address that pay in article 28. Okay, 14 two. We have agreed to remove this language after understanding that the educators in this area are in a separate bargaining unit and we're retaining our proposed language. And 14 five, unless
otherwise noted in this article, all provisions of this agreement apply for educators working through summer school and evening school. We have been told in the past by the district that only Article 14 applies to summer and evening school work, and the rest of the collective bargaining agreement does not protect the educators. So that's why we wanted to make sure that we kept 14 five in there. Are there any questions? Thank you. Are there any questions? Good evening. Um, my question is, can you explain a little bit more about deepening school?
I'm not understanding the, what that is. I, So in the past there's been different models of, of schools where you may have, um, schools that are on different schedules where you have like a main schedule during the day, then you have a, a different, you know, an evening schedule, um, where they might come in and do additional, um, uh, things like a, if it is a credit recovery or if it is, um, you know, looking at, uh, uh, I'm trying to think of the word GBTs, uh, support for students. And so those, you know, we've heard we didn't wanna limit
if there were supports that schools wanted to do for that, and just make sure that, you know, if if you do have some something that goes into the evening that is support for kids that either goes above and beyond what the regular contract day is, then at least you have that in there to say, yes, we need a, a minimum pay. Um, what's outlined in Article 28 for that? Because the fear was, uh, with our educators, with them if they wanted to, and, and this is especially at, at some innovation schools and others, right? If they wanted to do something additional like that, that it would, it could be, uh, construed
that since it was no longer the contract, they could pay what, so we're just, you know, that's the main pieces we didn't wanna limit where schools were. Any other questions? I think that brings us to article 30. District, district sits in your court or if you Ready To present a counter of this? Yes. All right. Article, various in Just appeared. I think we're good. All right. Most of this article wasn't, uh, in, in play here. I read as far as initial proposals from either side. This was here, um, The,
the Association Proposed School shall host an informational meeting co facilitated by the Association of District Leadership. That part there is actually already in this article down below, below here at the bottom of the page where it says, or hosting, co-facilitating meeting with d ct, that's already a strategy's available for the SLT and the spirit of innovation where schools want to be able to be graded as far as the way they engage their teachers. We think that it's appropriate to be a choice, not a mandate up above, uh, the last part of that language as far as, uh, impacts of any innovation plan,
we thought that that was a little bit weighted, so we weren't, uh, weren't comfortable with that language that that principal shall encourage these state covered employees to attend. That, that, that's a little bit weird as well, that There's nine events that are obligatory in the contract. We don't know that it's appropriate for the principal to, uh, encourage everyone to attend or not. If they want to be there, they should be there. It's just kind of some weird language. It's also a mandate on our school leaders. That means, uh, we did, uh, go back to the current language here. If the equivalent governing body is unable to reach decision by consensus, the principal shall make a final decision. That language will strip again before,
and it didn't, uh, didn't, uh, provide for a final decision if consensus was breached. So we believe that that current language is important In, uh, article 30 dash two dash five DCK proposed that the, there would be three, a minimum of three community engagement sessions, usually two weeks notice. That's a six weeks week process minimum. And with, uh, approximately 43 innovations things up for renewal, that's not really a viable process for us. So what we did do, though, we, we do think that involved the community is important. So we are proposing to do changes to having a community,
a minimum, or having a, a community engagement session, uh, with at least one week's notice. We got that was a little bit more for appropriate as far as being able to engage some community in bed there. Um, we also, on, on the bottom line, their interpretation services, childcare and general will be provided by the district upon request. That's not always possible, especially with the number of innovation schools and the timing of it all as far as having interpretation services, uh, dinner. If the school wants to do those things, I'm more than welcome to, but we don't think it would need to be required here.
I these days propose to add secure end front of secret ballot vote. We may, if the secret ballot votes are, uh, are secure, I don't think that that needs to be, or that I believe was added on because of the addition of the lock box down below, Which is here. A locked lock ballot box in envelope construction should be used to protect voter privacy. Um, I heard some examples last time, but that I wanna, whenever there's an innovation vote, there's, uh, election officials that are not from that school that go out to, uh, schools run the election. I've witnessed these myself and the individual who's the election official,
they don't hand the envelope over people to go through and do their thing. They hand them a ballot and the ballot gets put back in that envelope. They don't have that envelope out. Um, I do believe that that's a very secure process and I don't know that the lockbox would need to change this particular process. So we, we were not, uh, comfortable with changing actual lockbox. We believe that the election official does make from that side source does make that a secure process. And then down, be below here as far as innovations zone we get down here.
Then there really was no language in here about Innovations Zone. So we're, we're willing to accept most of your language, and we thought that that meant join or create, like if a school wants to join Innovation Zone or create their own innovations zone, that the election process in Article 30 dash three, as you all pointed out, that that would be followed. We think that makes sense. Why would you do a different election process for innovation zone? So we just, the only change to add instead of engage with him specific as those words. Thank you. DCTA.
Do we have any initial questions or comments? Um, can you go back up to the where, strike out the one, or, sorry, two weeks. That was for the, uh, community. It went to one week. Um, so just my question would be as to why we would not want to give our community more of a heads up regarding a change like this that's gonna happen in their community. Um, so I don't really, I, I guess I just,
I just would like to know the rationale behind going for two weeks, which I think is a reasonable amount of time to give people notice to just one week. Well, we also think that one week is a reasonable amount of time. Sometimes at two weeks, the farther things out, sometimes you get forgotten. Where if it's would've been a week, usually that's on people's immediate calendar and it sitting in the forefront of their mind. We believe they're more likely to attend with one week Looking at the, the right spot. The other thing, um, there's two different things in here. One is that there's a minimum of three and then at two weeks,
and that creates a minimum of a six week timeline. And so if we were to decrease that to one week, then it's a three week timeline or to how many engagement sessions are required. Well, I just, I I guess I just don't understand, like, why would you need to, why? I mean, why are we brushing, processing this, I guess is, Yeah, I would also say that you can give two weeks notice from three meetings all at the same time with the first meeting between two weeks out and the remaining meetings. But you wouldn't need to give two weeks before each meeting.
You could say at the beginning of initiating the process, we will have three meetings. The first will be in two weeks, the second will be in three weeks, third will be in four weeks. They don't, or they could be all in the same week, but you're at least giving two weeks notice. Because for those of us with children, we plan ahead and we have very busy schedules. So it'll be nice to know what are my three options for attending these meetings? They're not conflicting with software practice and it's not conflicting with concert, you know, like planning ahead is important for families. I have a question above related to possible strategies versus
requiring the association to be involved. I can understand, not mandating what principals do, but informational meetings are important for transparency and accountability and, and those are district values. So I just wanna make that point. Uh, and then regarding interpretation services isn't in a district value that we have equity and that parents schools can understand what's happening with their schools. No, I get that. But your proposals as
provided by the district, I didn't see the association directly provided either. So mean, if that's something that's important, talk about, we can mark on that. If the informational meeting isn't co facilitated by the association, why would, like, I think we would have to have that part in order to be able to contribute to the interpretation. Well, interpretation wasn't that means, but it need be me. Thank you again for the presentation and the question piece. Any others? Okay. But we actually have a few questions. Oh, please. Um, because we did share some examples where the, the ballot box or envelope wasn't singular.
And we understand that it's your belief that it is, but we have stories and examples of how it has not been. And so it feels dismissive when the, to explain to you why he left. He's proposing in this language for you to say, we believe it's fine. And it, Yeah, I just wanna point out that we also have stories that we've heard and that we've seen through our lives as well. Her goal is to be dismissive. We're having, having a debate here. That's all. We both have different perspectives and I think that maybe that's the whole idea of collaboration and discussion. I understand, I think for proving that math, right,
you can prove something to not be true by providing counter example, but you can't prove something to be true by saying we have all these examples of far expert. Right. Does that make, I'm just saying that we have, everything's okay. Okay. We've been sitting here for a while, so I want to thank both groups about the presentations, the discussion, the questions that have been shared as and answered. That means we have now gotten through 9, 10, 12, 14, and 30 everything that was on our agenda to present. So I'm going to guess that we need some huddle time
to review what has been discussed and presented on the table. That's correct. Unless there was something else anybody wanted to share at this structure. I think Kayla, the only question I, I know we've had the question. I know we've had the Yeah. Touch, Dave, I know we've had the question from the audience about whether or not we'll be getting back together tonight to review some of those things. I I know, you know, teams will need time. You'll need to talk to us too. Um, but we wanna make sure that, uh, um, you know, we, we are trying to make it back here this evening to, to get to a couple of these. Hopefully it gets more to 10 agreements through this, right?
Yeah, I think that's a very fair question. We have an hour and 50 minutes. My question to both parties would be, in terms of the ones that have been presented to you, are there any that you think you're going to be relatively able quickly, relatively quickly, able to turn around and get back to the table? I can't answer that for you. Yeah, that's really hard. Without the quick huddle, however, our intent would be to get back here tonight and be able to have some grievance that that's our, What we could do is have me check in with both parties,
see where we're at, and then come make an announcement or shared so that once we have an informed thought around that, I, I think that, that, that works. And you know, if we have, if we're thinking about a time to be back, I think seven 30 would be a good timing. We do, but that's, yeah, I think that's a good idea. After talking parties, I guess Just within the, if the district can answer the question, if they, I know you weren't ready to do 23 when we came fast. It's been something that we ha was on our previous schedule. If they would have time to bring that back tonight,
um, as part of that. So answering that question, not right now, but as part of the, part of the question. Okay. I'm gonna give you very little time before I, I come marching in your room to check in. Okay, That's, go ahead. Yeah, I am. Just one second. What if you're not muted, please mute because I'm All right. So, article nine, central office educated pilot. Let uh, go through this. Uh, we're accepting the, uh, association one to leave in at the educator requesting won, make the president's review. So we've accepted that as previously.
Currently, uh, we did not accept the language at the end Association representative shall be available. It all means it involved place material with central office file. We thought we met that gate up above where within the context of the bank would say nothing. Everyone check if you're muted. It would say that material origin regime within the district, uh, which disciplinary nature negative in regard to educator's conduct service character. Her personnel shall be placed in an educator's file, unless say, educators, an opportunity to read the material of the association representative present
and sign the copy being filed. So we thought we met your need by including it there. Just to be a little more specific. As for this particular case, uh, right here, this is the only thing that we really didn't, didn't agree with or thought that gonna need, uh, or anything discovered during the investigation. That test is something that if something does come up, we, we believe that we should do it, uh, pursue it if need be pursued. So that's something that we're not able to, uh, to move on. It's just something we feel very strongly about. We do feel we met every other
meeting that you had in this article. You saw the first, uh, two oriented, the representation and the language that you had asked to keep in here. As far as the written response, uh, we had proposed this original language to make it 10 school days. You proposed 20. We would just like to go back to the current contract language other than, uh, the Office of Talent there, just to kind of clean up who it is. The, uh, due process Fairness guide already does say 20 days. That would still be in play, but we just think it's easier to just get rid of the slackers all together. Go ahead. Been proposed by us. Uh, here.
The district retains material most informed educator. Uh, what that material will be retained, well, excuse me. It must inform the educator what material will be retained and provide the educator the rationale for retaining the material. So we're willing to accept that as long as we keep the district of the exclusive responsibility, determine whether the material should be retained. And then we also, uh, wanna keep the current items and except for central office personnel, so we thought this was very much a compromise proposal. They really met most of your needs here. So we're hoping that this could be accept. Thank you, Lawrence. I wanna open it up
to see if there's any, a feedback, comments or questions about this latest counter proposal on Article nine. Are there any comments or questions related to this latest counter proposal on Article nine? De Okay. Anyone else? S any? I, I think I just have one question. I, and, uh, hopefully you can hear me. Okay. I just wanna clarify, in in nine three you stated that, um, the, with the fairness guy or, uh, with the, uh, due process guide and for prepar, uh, due process, sorry, retired.
So I'm trying to remember. I can never remember the name of it either. So yeah, it's the, the, uh, the due process for fairness, I think is what it is. Uh, yeah. Um, anyway, the, with that you stated that within there it does talk about 20 days. Um, so I think, yeah, just, just want to clarify that. Make sure, so it it, it will give the educators the amount of time we need. I think, I mean, just off the top of my head, we'll have to reread that and look at it again. But I think the concern we would have is whether
or not that could be changed. Um, you know, at any, any time is the only concern, but we'll take that back. And I just wanna make sure and clarify that. Well, it currently didn't have any timeframe within the agreements. That's what we distribute, review, not fight about this language as an example. Any other questions on this? Okay. Not hearing any now. So why don't we move to 14 district? I think you're also a hundred present the encount on this one. That's Correct. Pop it in the Google file. Good sound. I love it. Anybody ever seen a movie Urg feel like we should be singing?
Put a little love in your heart right now. Full audience, what side of theater? This, let's, let's finish the rest of the proposal. We still gotta get through money. And last, right, uh, we, uh, added are we accepted the addition to keep, uh, or we accepted the proposal to keep Ethan School. We did strike and an explanation of the selection process. That's not in any current posting. Um, I know that was the language here, but the posting law has changed with people pay
for equal work. And what the law currently says is that salary and application details would be what needs to be included in the most. That's where that language comes from. So, Um, we, we understood what you're asking here, but unfortunately the April 15th and the May 1st don't always work. Sometimes, uh, we don't know how many students enroll. We're still trying to hire people after that. Uh, sometimes the hiring goes later than that. So what, what we thought we, we wanna try to make you need though. 'cause I, I understand you want people to know if they're hired to do the job.
So when we, uh, responded with the, some full applicants be notified their hiring status within two weeks after the conclusion of the interview process, depending on the department, the DSS department hires a not a lot of people for the summer school programs. And so they may like, their interviews may no longer in two weeks. That's why within two weeks, once the interviews are concluded, people would know if they've received a position or not using that fair one. Make sure that people do know, connect with the other. We wanna make sure that we're able to follow our process. In 14 1 2, uh, we struck out at a minimum
and we just, uh, kept the current language as provide an Article 28 And then this language here, unless all, unless otherwise go to this article, this agreement of apply fresh kids working during summer school, leaving school, that's not something we're able to agree to. I do, I do wanna point out that any summer school assignment is an, or is an additional assignment that somebody applies for. They take that on. It's not a requirement of their position, it's an added assignment. So that, that's why we don't believe this would cover the contract also specifically states that the contract work year is 186 days. These days are not counted as part of that work year. That's why we don't believe this would count.
And so we're not, uh, willing to extend this contract to all, all parts of the contract to summer school. Article 14, talk about summer school because there was a carve out specifically for source Questions. Yeah. So let's start with questions around that. So Lawrence, when it comes to the, um, what you're saying then is because it's not specified in Article 14, if there if, um, if an educator wanted to bring forward a grievance, they couldn't do so according to Article seven,
they could bring forward a grievance on anything in Article 14. We would, we would order that, because this specifically process source, what if it was a complaint against an educator? What if it was a, um, you know, a discrimination or if it was some of the stuff we've been talking about today with Article 23 would so none of that would apply. Well, no, I, I disagree with that. Article 23 is governed by, uh, policy AC as far as discrimination. So that would still imply that important policy that's not in the contract. A any discrimination case
that comes forward would not be subject to agree this process either. But if we have specific language within our agreement that addresses beyond that, then this, by striking this language, what you're saying, what you're saying is none of the rest of the a agreement covers educators during summer school. That's what you're saying? I'm saying that summer school's an additional assignment that people are not forced to work. They decide if they wanna work it just like they would've summer job anywhere else. Even if it's outside the district and that's outside the contract you call calendar work here. So the other parts of the contract that are 14 gonna apply.
Okay, we'll take that back. Any other questions? Yeah, we got a couple over here. Okay, so scrolling up to the election process. 14 1 1 2. One of the major concerns our educators have specifically around ESY is the timeliness of which the positions were posted and then also hiring and understanding whether or not they can accept a job with DPS or ESY. And so understanding that process would be an important
step for transparency to ensure that educators can, can make a decision for their planning for summer if they don't know whether they have the job or not, if they don't know what the timeline looks like. It is challenging to, I, I know a lot of educators have decided I don't think I can commit to working for DPS the center because I haven't received that job offered yet. I, I understand that. And there are some cases where buildings are still hiring for next year. I mean, the, that gets done as soon as possible.
It's not always the case that it's done early. And I would hope that they would still be wanting to accept a position if it came forward. I'm talking about for ESY, right? Is that what you're talking about? Yeah, that's, Do we know what the fill rate is for our summer school positions Ms way? Do not. We Should. Can can we get that before our next session? Can you Bring that before our next session? We can look at it. So maybe I would hope so. I don't know what's required. That's not my area. It's, I gotta ask second. I didn't have another time, so I'm, I'm hoping we can, and, and I do wanna note on 14 1 1 2 about the
explanation of selection process. If we want have like a one pager about the selection process, that's something would be amenable to it is just a matter of putting it in the post itself. That's, that's what the run is. So I mean we're, we're open to like a, any, any informational document. I'm assuming people learn about this typically by a fire or something, but it is available. You know, I think it would be okay to put the selection process there. I do want people to understand, hey, this is what you have to do to refer a job. You have to apply, you have to do this. You know, we'll make selections question, Uh, one more question. In years past, um, there's been some times
where we haven't been able to staff, uh, cyber school so that, you know, program, they've actually had to increase the pay around that. So, um, what, I guess what would we, what in your mind, what would we do if, um, like there was an issue with this where we couldn't staff, I'm particularly thinking about ESY, right? And some of the positions within ESY 'cause that is something that we're federally mandated to do. Um, what would we do if we needed to increase those, you know, the, the, the incentives for teachers to actually, and then another educators statute to take on those problem?
Well, I mean, I think it's up to us to pay what's in the agreement. I know that in the past it was done a little bit differently. That wasn't, that wasn't because of a hard time staffing almost because there were extra dollars that were used to pay people. And it's my belief that because we paid people more than double what that contractual rate was at the time, that that's why it's hard. It's been hard to find people to do this because they got paid a higher rate. Now it's like, oh, wait a minute, why would I do this for the normal rate? Because I got paid the higher rate before. So we think this normalizes people will be more likely
to take these positions. So that wasn't just, uh, for the feedback, it was not our experience. Um, I remember a phone call, um, talking with, I believe it was Miguel at the time, um, where, you know, they talked about increasing, or it may have been with Julie, um, the fact that they couldn't, um, uh, staff that. And so they did want to increase those, that those dollar amounts, not because they had the extra money, but because they including fill those positions. So just wanna make sure you, you all knew that moving forward, we, we have a different recollection of that.
There has been in the past, educators being paid their hourly rate. It's very different depending on year year. And so our goal with this article is to create a consistent and transplant, but how summer school works, No, I, I totally agree with that. Um, in the past is some groups have been paid differently than what was gonna the contract. What does have been happening is we have multiple groups that do summer school type of programs, and if one group doesn't pay that same rate, then people don't wanna work for them. It doesn't become a problem.
We're not having a consistent process. We show the same machine. So in advance of our next session we have, you can look into the fill rate data and see what is available to be shared. And there was also the suggestion of perhaps putting together a one pager on a selection process, just something that's not posted or shared in the actual description. So I just want us to not lose, uh, not lose either of those as we're contemplating this for next session. Should we move on to Article 30? Okay. What can I, yeah, question. Um, when we talk about dual rates,
are we talking about ESY has yours is Point, Kara, other programs? Did you hear the, the question in the, for the fill rate, are we specifically interested in Yes. What I would say, we want to know what the rates were for all of those programs. Um, you know, I, I know there are some schools, innovation schools that, that do different. Um, you know, they, they do summer programs and things like that. They may, may have a different rank beyond that. And so that's the, you know, one of the things that we would like to know, um, you know, are those,
are they being fill those as well in the fire way? And I think what, you know, to, to the point warrant made, I think, um, you know, our, our interest is make sure that the kids have s have supports in the classroom for ESY, for other, for other programs like that. Um, so just want make sure to clarify that positions, positions that are tracked or that are hired centrally. We can, I don't think we've reached out and I don't think we tracked that. We may be able to put something together. We'll try to, but if it is like school based
or innovations, I'm not sure we're gonna have that data. Just be open, honest. Yeah. I think it is important to look and see what you can, 'cause I think that, you know, once again, we're trying to solve the issue of of, of not having an educator in those positions. Laura, the consistent is what for other position that You probably, if be asked why number easier than others. That's what I, well, I believe we're not meeting again until the ninth, so that gives us at least 10, 10 to 12 days. 11, I forget.
Um, so hopefully we can get as much information as possible. Okay. Thank you all, uh, for nine 14. Let's move to 30. Okay. Turn it over. Thank you, Senator. Yeah, so, Okay, we can scroll down to, uh, first place where we, um, made some changes in 30 dash two, dash three and, um, what we want to, um, um, you know, have, have here. So when we went back through and we reread the language and we heard your concerns about some of those pieces, um, and one of the things we heard was, Hey,
we're concerned about directing principles to do, to, to tell employees, to encourage employees to go to these things. Um, you know, we, we felt like that was a little, uh, you know, okay. Um, but we wanted to get back to what was the most important piece of this. So one of the things we did was, is we were reading it, it felt a little clunky having it in the middle of this. So we actually did move it to its own, uh, piece on it on the outside. So the, the top part just reads basically schools leadership team or other will, um, you know, identify strategies. Strategies include hosting against forms. Um, and then when it comes to 30 dash two dash four,
we brought this piece back. School shall host an informational meeting co-facilitated by association and district leadership to present educator rights and impacts and innovation plans. So we brought this back because the last time we, we did this, um, innovation round was about three years ago. Um, we, I I am just gonna reiterate, we were actually invited by you all to do this, right? And I think there's been, uh, you know, I'm thinking about Northfield and I'm thinking about how Northfield wanting to have this, you know,
they wanted this information. Um, people were pushing on it. I'm also thinking about other schools where it was vetoed by the principal. Actually, elementary, I'm thinking about this as a matter of fact. And so one of the things we're trying to solve for is to make sure that all, every educator, every, you know, whoever wants to attend this meeting, they come and they actually have the ability to hear from district and DCTA around the possibilities. If there isn't anything impacting the collective bargain agreement, it's gonna be a very short
presentation on our side. Um, if there are parts and pieces there, it's important to be able to show that side so that people can feel conformed. The reason we've had so many problems with innovation schools is because we did not have this mechanism within the contract. And when we went last round, we negotiated this to 22 and we found the number one thing that made a difference in, in, in educators feeling actually valued. Part of why we're, you know, when we talk about as value us, respect US educators felt valued,
they felt respected when we actually gave the time to go out there and explain these pieces to 'em so they could ask questions. 'cause what happens is when you don't have that mechanism, there becomes only one piece of one, one, um, uh, source of information. Thank you. Um, and that's the issue that we're running into. So that's why we went ahead and, um, brought this piece back because it is so important. Um, and, and making sure that we have those that in place. If you go down to, uh, 30 dash two dash five, So once again,
and I'm thinking specifically about all the, the parents that reached out to DCTA when Skinner, uh, was going through their innovation, um, vote and their innovation process. There were so many parents that did not have information. It wasn't communicated to them timely. Um, I believe in that case it was sent out one week in advance. And if you're here, you hear, and if you're not, you're not. Um, and, and there were a ton of parents that actually reached out to P CT saying, what is going on here? Why is this school going innovation? I don't understand. So it was the first time that they had actually,
you know, heard about these things. Um, we don't think that the one week's notice is enough. You can do two weeks. We, we we're, we're saying we need to have a minimum of two engagement sessions with parents. Part of that would be to, you know, is to make sure that you're hearing from those constituents. And it's also well advertised and, and know, I, I'm sorry, but if, if people are reaching out to me next week, I, there's no way I can change things to go in an issue meeting. I need at least two weeks to get to something. Make sure that, so that's why they'll see those changes in there.
Uh, the other thing we did go ahead and, um, with the election procedures we did, um, uh, we, we accepted your language, the, the cross out of the secure and secret ballot vote saying that the secret ballot vote was, was in that definition. And then in 30 dash three dash eight we did agree with your change around the locked ballot box. We still think it's important to have a locked ballot box. Um, I know what happens in these situations is generally, and I'm, and I'm gonna talk worst case scenarios,
we're trying to solve for those worst case scenarios. What we've seen over time, and I know, you know, all of our staff has seen this, Rachel's seen this when she was, uh, you know, on our staff, um, when we would go to those schools and you, you have the principal who really wanted to control the information. But then when we, uh, when they would come through, it was usually the, the person that was the, the third party was somebody that was generally like an office manager or something. Not necessarily somebody that was in a bargain unit or, well, they're, they're securing those envelopes,
they're washing that stuff, but they are beholden primarily to the principal. That's where the our, our concern came from. But we are relenting on that piece 'cause we know those other components up the above are more important. Um, and interpret, oh, the EF above. Yeah. Sorry, I forgot to mention that. Thank you Michelle. The other piece that was left out of the 30 dash two dash five was, uh, this piece making sure that we have interpretation services, um, um, provided by the district. We understand that may not be able to do childcare, may not be able to dinner, but at least there should be
interpretation service to make sure that all of our, our parents in the community has access and coordination like everybody else. Um, and then very at the very bottom we did, um, accept your, um, changes with the innovation zoning. What questions do you have? Thank you Rob. We have questions. I I do have a question on the first change that was made up there. Right, right there. Um, so does this mean that the only meetings that would be had will be go facilitate with the association of district?
No, it says, um, strategies include hosting forums. Um, if you look at the, the sentence about school leadership team or go body, we'll identifying a consensus model, engagement strategies on how these Team Pepper employees at the school can participate in the development of the innovation plan. Strategies include hosting forums, especi options, conducting surveyed educators. So we still encourage those other values as well. Sorry, interrupt. No, go ahead. You, you struck inviting teachers to informational meet information meetings. So I'm trying to understand that because that only allows the co-facilitated meeting.
Do, do you all still go in and have your own meeting with your members? Members? So we have the ability to have a meeting with our members, um, whenever we need to after school. We can still do that if, if you're referring just specifically to PCTA meetings. Yeah. I'm curious though, you have the DA meeting about this why you would allow inviting teachers to informational meetings about above. It seems like a natural parallel. Well part of that was because we were planning on having these, the informational meetings for everyone in the co-facilitated role and people can ask any questions they want at that point,
but why couldn't I have a meeting that wasn't co co co-facilitated as well? That's what us next. So we can still do that and, and you know, with d CT meetings it doesn't mean that others are locked out. We always encourage people to come to, to our meetings and, and we also invite them to join. Um, when the meeting, yeah, I'm not talking about D ct, I'm talking about the school having their own be invited teachers to the informational meeting that's not senate. So yeah, why wouldn't we still be allowed to do that? I think you probably can still do that. Um, the intent on that piece, um, was to make sure that, uh,
the strategies was in there. So if, if the concern is, um, that you wanted to have meetings in addition to the school shall host the informational meeting, then we're open to that. Thank you. And just one last piece in here. We did, we went ahead and we continued to cross out the equivalent of everybody is unable to reach the decision by consensus. Well by the definition, by that language, if they're not able to reach consensus, then that wouldn't happen anyway. Like right now there's no mechanisms in there to, to solve for that issue. Any other questions? Okay, thank you all.
It's been a long day, made some progress. Lot of things have exchanged across the table. Our next date, Rob you said was The ninth. According to my calendar, that's two weeks away. Okay. So Not less than that, but It's less than that. That's what I would like to talk about really quickly in the interest of time, I know, I know we've been here a long time on the table still left from today, we have 9, 10, 12, 14, 23 and 30. So I, I wanna know first and foremost if we want to bring those back to the table and then I will be asking you again via email
to exchange your ideas for where we go next and see if we can get a timely agreement via email so that everybody can prepare a reporting. Right. So my understanding is that we have nine and 14 to prepare and the district has the reading proposals on that list. The other four. Correct. And I full transparency will say that I didn't say 16 only 'cause we put sort of a pause on that. So I would ask everybody to kind of think about that one and we can decide whether it's appropriate for next agenda or not that way.
Did we get email? Yes. So would we like to talk about a timeframe to sort of exchange those emails so that we can prep accordingly And I can follow up with you. I have a group. If I don't have an email by then, what makes most sense to you in terms of your preparation schedules? We can probably do Tuesday by the third. June 3rd. Does that work district? That that's fine. Okay. I will timely turn that around on the third so that you have a response after I review your SEC
request agreement. Do we have a location for the next Uh yes. The ninth, 10th in will be on the SA campus. I don't think it's the earliest across the street, so at the new campus there, but I will get those Utah emailed. It's Mosaic Campus, right? Is that what it's called for that? I'm not sure what it's called. Be honest with you Johnson. Can you all just share with me the very specific addresses? Yes. Thank you Amy for if we can have the address and room numbers by Tuesday at n well that would be helpful also. What lots of park in and parking information.
There's lots of the Possible Well there parking Lots of lots. Well we need to know if we're allowed to park there though. Is it day parking or can anyone park? Is it public? Well that's question that you'll have. We'd like to be able to share with our members. Well, we'll see if, if we get that figured out. I don't, I don't have that off the top of my head. Yeah, no that's fine. Okay. I'll look for emails on logistics location and your proposed agenda items by June 3rd, Tuesday at noon. Can we also confirm that we'll be bargaining from one to eight, all three of those dates? That's all that was on my account.
And that one day we would have caucus rooms before starting at eight 30. That that's any request? I'd have to check. Our original ask was was Monday, so. Okay. All right. We'll follow up on all of those details. I'll be looking for my IP parking and VIP Tuesday. You still want cater? Yes. Okay. Thank you again all of your effort. Attention. I appreciate it. I'll see you tonight. Thanks Table. Yeah, if everybody can help us.