CPAA Report: Principal Voice in CPS/CTU Bargaining

R E PORT:

Principal Voice in CPS/CTU Bargaining 300+ School Administrators Weigh In on the Issues at Stake in the 2019 Teacher Contract Negotiations CH ICAG O P RIN C IPA L S A N D A D M I N I STR ATO R ’S A SSO C I ATI O N | S E PTE M B E R 2 4 , 2 0 1 9

Executive Summary PU R POSE

The more than 650 active members of the Chicago Principals and Administrators Association want good learning conditions for the students we serve, and good working conditions for the school leaders who serve them. Since the district’s contract with its teachers will influence student learning conditions, we have developed this report to inform the district, its teachers, and the general public about the perspectives of CPS’s principals in regard to some of the key issues at stake.

FI N D I N GS

Professional Development and Prep Time •

A supermajority (68%) of principals and assistant principals are opposed to the district’s proposal to reduce teacher-directed preparation time and increase principal-directed preparation time.

•

School leaders who support the proposal have important concerns that could be addressed by adopting other policies that a majority of both teachers and principals support or through more targeted strategies. We provide examples of such strategies herein.

•

92% of school leaders want 30-minute morning teacher preparation time restored (97% either support or are unopposed to the restoration of morning preps).

•

93% want full-day professional development opportunities for their teachers and 74% want four to eight full teacher PD days per year.

Principal Representation in Bargaining District officials have made questionable—if not false—statements about principal participation on the bargaining team that they have failed to substantiate after numerous requests for supporting information. In addition, the district has failed to include representative principal voice in these negotiations and made public statements that blatantly mischaracterized principal voice. In the end, these district practices are likely to lead to policies that hinder our ability to help students realize their full potential. Including authentic and representative principal voices in bargaining and policy making would go a long way toward preventing bargaining impasses and improving district policymaking.

Section One: Professional Development and Preparation Time I N T RO DUC T I O N

One of CPS’s demands in its current negotiations with the Chicago Teachers Union is that teacherdirected preparation time be reduced from four days per week to two days per week for elementary and middle school teachers. In order to justify this demand, CPS made two claims in regard to CPS principals: 1. CPS claimed principals want two additional days of principal-directed teacher preparation periods each week in addition to the one day of principal-directed preparation time currently in place.

2. The CPS CEO claimed CPS includes principals on its bargaining team.

This report aims to shed light on both of these claims. In addition, this report seeks to illuminate a path toward a bargaining agreement that both teachers and principals believe will help us realize the potential of our students.

W H AT CPS PR I N CI PA L S WA N T The most glaring shortcoming of the district’s contract demands is that it failed to get the opinion of a critical mass of principals before making demands in our names. The Chicago Principals and Administrators Association sought out the voices of our members--principals and assistant principals across the City--by conducting a survey focused on this issue. More than 300 elementary and middle school principals and assistant principals responded. The results are summarized below.

THE ISSUE Principal vs. Teacher-directed Preparation Time We asked more than 300 school administrators if they agreed or disagreed with the following statement:

The district should reduce the number of self-directed teacher preps from four per-week to two per-week in order to create two additional principal-directed preps each week.

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Disagree

Agree

Neutral

12% 12%

39%

8% 29%

68% of school leaders oppose the district’s preparation time proposal, and 76% are either opposed or indifferent.

An overwhelming majority of principals and assistant principals (68%) are opposed to the district’s preparation time proposal. 8% are neutral, and 24% support it.

Reaching a compromise Although they are in the minority, those who support the proposal have important concerns that should be heard and addressed, but the district’s proposal attempts to saddle all principals with an overbroad mandate when what is needed is a more precise strategy.

Examples of more precise strategies are included at the end of this section under the heading “Sample Compromises.� To be clear, we are not proposing these compromises. They are included as examples to help both parties see how they can change their thinking in a way that enables them to create tailor-fitted solutions to highly specific problems.

T HE R E AL ISSUE Before School Preparation Time We asked more than 300 school administrators if they agreed or disagreed with the following statement:

The district should restore paid daily half-hour teacher prep periods before school so that principals will not have to compensate teachers by giving up principal-directed preps or professional development days. Principals would also be able to use one of these periods each week for staff meetings and professional development.

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Disagree

Agree

%1.9%

% 1.3

4.4

16.8%

75.6%

Neutral

92% of school leaders want 30-minute morning teacher preps restored.

An overwhelming majority (92%) of principals and assistant principals want the district to restore 30 minutes of preparation time at the beginning of each school day before students arrive, and 97% are either supportive or unopposed. This is also a CTU contract demand which makes it an area of agreement between principals and teachers. One difference, however, is that principals also want to restore the practice of using one of those 30-minute periods for staff meetings and staff development each week.

T HE R E AL ISSU E # 2 Professional Development Days We asked principals and assistant principals how many days per year they want district-wide full-day professional development for teachers.

They selected from the following options:

18.5%

7%

30%

Twice per year Four times per year Eight times per year Never/not important

44.4%

93% of respondents want full-day professional development opportunities for their teachers.

19% of respondents wanted full-day professional development twice per year, 44% said four times per year, and 30% indicated eight times per year (about once a month). Among the 7% who indicate they did not want these days, several commented that they would indeed welcome them if the content of professional development could be determined at the school level.

SA M PL E CO M PRO M ISE S Although 76% of respondents are opposed or indifferent to the district’s preparation time proposal, 24% support it. Those who support it listed two reasons for their support. Those reasons are discussed below.

Principal Concern #1: Loss of Principal-Directed Time

A need for more professional development and collaboration time caused by (a) the lack of full-day professional development, and (b) having to give up half their principal-directed preps to compensate teachers for the three weekly 15-minute morning preps.

Solution #1: Reinstate thirty-minute morning preps Since many principals are losing principal-directed time because of the need to compensate teachers for morning prep time, restoring the 30-minute preps before school would prevent those principals from losing principal-directed preps since they would no longer have to compensate teachers for morning prep time. As previously stated, 92% of principals and assistant principals support this proposal, and 97% are either supportive or unopposed.

Solution #2: Limited and narrowly defined expansion of principal-directed prep time Any discussion of the expansion of principal-directed preps should focus on the common ground between teachers, principals, and the district in relation to what an additional principal-directed prep would be used for. The common denominator between CTU, CPS, and principals is teacher collaboration time. CTU, principals, and the district have all stated that preps need to be used for collaboration.

Accordingly, a compromise could read as follows:

The district should keep the existing principal-directed prep period and convert one self-directed prep into a principal directed prep that principals can either use for teacher collaboration only, or give back to teachers as self-directed time.

This compromise adds one principal-directed prep that--if used by the principal--must be focused on collaboration. According to CTU, such collaborative planning is one of the activities they want to preserve during prep time. With teachers, principals, and the district all expressing a desire to use preps for collaboration, this compromise meets the expressed needs and wants of all three parties to some degree. Sixty percent of our survey respondents agreed with this compromise, nine percent were neutral, and 36 percent were against it.

The district could also add a qualifier to this compromise proposal. For example, a qualifier could be that schools could only convert the self-directed period into a principal-directed one if the school had academic growth below the 40th percentile for two consecutive years. We are not proposing this qualifier, but merely offering it as an example of how the district could develop a more precise strategy to address the expressed needs of a smaller percentage of school leaders.

Principal Concern #2: Misuse of Prep Time

Teacher misuse of self-directed time, using the periods for breaks, personal calls, lunch, or running personal errands.

Solution: Clearly define acceptable use of prep time One of the problems CPAA noticed when we looked at the teacher contract is that there is no clearly defined acceptable use of teacher self-directed preparation time. Potential misuse of prep time could be addressed by clearly defining acceptable and unacceptable preparation activities during self-directed time. The period would remain self-directed but within reasonable boundaries that principals would be able to address if abused.

CTU President Jesse Sharkey has stated teachers want to use the preps for teacher collaboration, curriculum development, lesson preparation, assessing student work, and parent communication among other things. CPS officials have stated they want the periods used for teacher leadership, department and grade-level collaboration, and professional preparation activities. These uses could form the basis of what both parties ultimately agree are acceptable uses of self-directed preparation time.

Few principals would prevent a teacher from occasionally using preparation time for urgent personal business. We understand that life happens. However, we know that abuse happens as well. CTU and CPS should, therefore, codify these and other acceptable teacher-directed prep time activities. This would give school leaders a policy basis from which to build professional school cultures where prep time is used in ways that benefit students while respecting the professionals who teach those students.

CPS M US T M E A N I N GFU L LY CO NSU LT I T S EL EC T ED PR I N CI PA L R EPR E SEN TAT I V E S As the data above illustrates, the district’s assertion that principals want a decrease in teacherdirected preparation time and an increase in principal-directed time is deeply problematic. It also fails to acknowledge what a supermajority of principals have said are the two core problems with how CPS handles time for teacher development: the failure to provide adequate prep time before school, and the failure to invest in a sufficient number of professional development days.

Furthermore, our sample compromise proposals demonstrate how having principals at the table can increase the likelihood of breaking an impasse between the district and its teachers.

Principals and other school leaders have a deep knowledge of professional best practices in education. Consulting these leaders would enable the district to pass better policies and establish more ideal academic environments for students.

Section Two: Principal Representation in Bargaining OV ER V I E W

District officials have made public statements claiming principals were on CPS’s bargaining team, Jackson and other CPS officials have, thus far, failed to provide any evidence validating their claim despite numerous requests. Jackson claimed these statements were made to add “perspective” and “gravitas” to CPS’s bargaining proposals with CTU. There are two issues at stake here, and both highlight the problematic manner in which the district uses--and fails to use--principals when formulating and adopting policies.

FA I LU R E TO I N CLU D E R EPR E SEN TAT I V E PR I N CI PA L VO I CE If principals are on the bargaining team, then CPAA was not consulted. This lack of consultation with CPAA indicates that despite Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s word that CPS would have the elected CPAA representatives of principals at the table, her appointees at CPS continue to attempt to side-step those elected representatives.

M A K I N G FA L SE A N D/O R M ISL E A D I N G S TAT EM EN T S A BO U T PR I N CI PA L VO I CE If there are no principals on the bargaining team, then the statements about principal participation on the team are untrue. Whether principals are on the team or not, it is clear that the district’s proposals are not representative of its principals. Therefore, the district has used our names to mislead the press, the public, and the Board of Education in order to justify a questionable contract demand.

CO N CLUSI O N: SCH O O L L E A D ERS D E SER V E BE T T ER It is beyond doubt that district officials did not consult principals in any meaningful way before making demands in our names. This failure has once again resulted in a district policy agenda that is not in line with student needs as understood by the professionals who lead the district’s schools.

CPS principals deserve a real representative voice in negotiations where the outcome will impact their work. They also deserve district leadership that is honest about the representative attitudes and beliefs of school leaders when it comes to district policy. To date, unfortunately, they have neither.

Sources Nadar Issa and Lynn Sweet (September 11, 2019) ‘Time is ticking’ on new teachers contract; Chicago schools chief says she’ll join talks when ‘appropriate.’ Chicago Sun-Times.

Link: https://chicago.suntimes.com/2019/9/11/20861502/cps-teachers-contract-strike-ctu-union-janice-jackson The electronic Elementary and Middle School Prep Time Survey received 317 responses. 187 were from principals, and 130 were from assistant principals. It was conducted by the Chicago Principals and Administrators Association via Survey Monkey email link during the three-day period from 9/18/2019 to 9/20/2019.