By Mary O’KEEFE

Last week CVW reported on a Glendale Teacher Association (GTA) demonstration at the offices of the Glendale Unified School District. The GUSD administration did not respond to questions by press time last week; however, below are their responses to questions asked by CVW concerning the negotiations with GTA. The teachers’ union has stated that GUSD added items to its contract; however, according to GUSD, the contract has not been changed.

“Our negotiations team met with GTA [on Tuesday] to discuss our successor agreement,” stated Kristine Nam, a spokeswoman with GUSD. “While we have heard GTA members say publicly that this was the 55th time we met, this was only the 12th time we met to discuss wage increases.”

One of the issues brought up by GTA members was a 4.5% one-time increase that was approved in 2020-21 but had yet to be received by teachers.

“Once GTA and GUSD reach a settlement, the agreement must be ratified by GTA and approved by the GUSD board. After that, raises will begin showing up in paychecks and retro checks will be processed. CSEA (California School Employees Association) and GSMA (Glendale Schools Management Association) members have received raises and received their retro checks this week based on the agreement settled this summer,” Nam stated.

GUSD continues to offer the same increases as the previous proposal: 2020-21 is a one-time 4.5% increase on total gross earnings, 2021-22 is a 3.5% ongoing retroactive increase to July 1, 2021 and in 2022-23 a 5.0% ongoing retroactive increase to July 1, 2022.

The dispute is how GTA wants the increases to be distributed regarding the 2021-22 and 2022-23 school years. The GTA wants 5% for years 2021-22 and 3.5% for 2022-23.

This proposal, according to the District, is coupled with two items: Acceptance of the District’s language on Article 19 – school-based management – and Acceptance of the District’s language on Article 7 – prep periods for secondary teachers.

Article 19 also includes language on how votes are counted.

The District has revised this proposal so that the 75% consensus will not include non-voters who fit criteria that include teachers who are on an approved leave of absence, submitted a notification of resignation/retirement for when the plan will be implemented or have been formally notified that they will not be returning to that site for the upcoming year for when the plan will be implemented.

At present if GTA members do not vote for issues including those listed above their vote is automatically counted as a “no,” according to the District.

The District feels if someone, for example, is not going to be part of the District during the implementation of the plan they are voting on, the act of not voting should not be registered as a “no” vote.

Additionally, teachers in secondary schools have issues with the block schedule and how it affects their ability to have a period per day to prepare, or prep time. GTA members did say that some school administrators have given teachers requested prep time each day while others have not. They want the prep time to be consistent throughout the District.

The District is looking to measure prep time on a bi-weekly basis instead of daily. 

“To meet GTA’s interest, we once again proposed that site administrators would ask teachers if they wanted their prep daily or if it didn’t matter in the annual survey that typically asks for requested teaching assignments (Article 9, section 2). If administrators cannot meet the request, they would be required to meet with the teacher, explain the circumstances and consider their alternatives in good faith. This is the same process described in Article 7, Section 5d, when employees are assigned more than three courses to teach,” according to the District.

“Some schools have agreed to amended contractual language to accommodate the updated cadence of prep time in a block schedule/seven-period day. Based on these successful examples, the District is proposing to make this the general contract language,” Nam stated. “It should be noted that currently only 27 teachers district-wide do not have a daily prep.”

Another disputed issue concerns school safety.

“The District is focused on safety and has proposed that teachers notify their site administrator at least one business day before making a change in the schedule,” according to the District.

The District wants teachers who come to their school prior to their designated time to let administrators know at least one business day prior. Superintendent Dr. Vivian Ekchian said this pertains to school safety. There are a number of issues that can arise at the school and knowing who is on campus at what time is important for the safety of everyone.

This, according to the District, is being disputed by GTA.

As far as the issue of grievances, GTA stated the District had changed its position on dealing with grievances that had been made. Nam and Dr. Ekchian said this was not true.

At the beginning of the year the District had wanted to start with a clean slate, asking the grievances that had been on the table be wiped clear. The GTA did not want that so the District and GTA are proceeding. An arbitrator has been chosen and the finality of his/her decision has been agreed to by both parties.

Dr. Ekchian said the District had wanted to avoid the expense of the arbitration; however, when the GTA did not agree it was decided to move forward with one.