Upcoming Executive Limitations Vote: Amended Proposal
IMPORTANT NOTE: This is my personal opinion and not endorsed by the Denver School Board. I made a commitment to you to be transparent and share my thought process along the way. While this may not be perfect, I am committed to ensuring we find an alternative solution.
After a healthy and robust debate at our quarterly school board retreat, I would like to share my thoughts with you on where I am with the current Executive Limitation under consideration by the Board of Education. On March 24th, 2022, we must vote on this proposal as is or an amended version.
First, I must acknowledge that this process has been flawed and rushed. Today marks the 46th day that the executive limitations currently under consideration by the Board of Education were introduced. I have spent the last six weeks speaking to over 45 innovation leaders, countless school visits, responding to hundreds of emails, and going to multiple town halls. Unfortunately, there has been misinformation on all sides of this plan. I agree with the majority of my colleagues, and that is we as a Board have unintentionally put school leaders and our educators at odds. Our students are once again stuck in the middle of adult politics. As a Board, we must take accountability that we have caused unnecessary anguish to the Denver Public Schools community.
After reviewing the survey data provided to us by Denver Public Schools, I echo the concern from various stakeholder groups regarding the process this has followed. Unfortunately, I believe we have failed to provide data supporting the rationale behind this issue.
Even after our robust and healthy debate around this process, I do not believe that we followed our process laid out in Governance Policy-14. One of the hot topic issues we discussed was if this proposed executive limitation followed our current policy. Below is a portion of the GP that the board discussed yesterday at our retreat.
c. First Reading
Any policy or policy revision that is formally introduced pursuant to paragraph 2 above shall be given a “first reading” by the Board at the scheduled time on the agenda. After the first reading, if the Board feels it will be helpful to its decision-making process, the Board will open discussion to those attending the meeting. After all, comments have been received, the Board will discuss the policy.
If the policy or policy revision fails to meet with the approval of a majority of the Board, it will be eliminated from further discussion. The policy may be redrafted and resubmitted for another first reading.
If the policy or policy revision, with or without amendments, meets with the approval of a majority of the Board, it will be placed on the agenda for the next monthly business meeting under “action items.”
It is my interpretation that before this proposed executive limitation was advanced, a majority of the Board should have agreed to the current language that was presented on January 24th, 2022. It was apparent by a majority of Board members that there was no alignment on the current proposed language. Therefore we must refer back to GP-14 and the guidance it gives us, and that is: If the policy or policy revision fails to meet with the approval of a majority of the Board, it will be eliminated from further discussion. The policy may be redrafted and resubmitted for another first reading.
Even after this spirited debate, I am still left with the question of “What are we trying to solve for?” Before introducing this executive limitation, we did not have any educators come to us highlighting a concerning pattern of innovation leaders working to erode their rights away from them. The survey data clearly stated that “Teachers who report a good understanding of their school’s waivers are less likely to support the proposed EL.” Therefore, this proposed executive limitation does not address the ongoing lack of education on our innovation renewal processes. It is important to note that the Denver Classroom Teachers Association (DCTA) has openly stated that they were not involved in crafting this executive limitation, and board members have acknowledged that DCTA did not approach them to introduce this into policy. The DCTA has been somewhat united since the introduction of this policy, and our educators have been unfairly attacked by those that do not support this policy. On the same note, our school leaders have been united in their opposition towards this policy and have been unfairly attacked by those who support it. This was never our intention as a Board, but we must take accountability for the division caused.
Some may argue that this stems from the previous innovation proposal in 2020; I’m afraid I have to disagree with that assertion. In 2020 the Board of Education briefly considered a proposal to re-imagine the innovation process and would have allowed teachers to vote waiver by waiver to decide what was best for their schools. I supported this plan. However, the executive limitation before us now is NOT the proposal of 2020.
Now make no mistake, I unequivocally support portions of EL-12, employee treatment. However, I believe our educators deserve the same rights and protections that our school leaders have. Their TECDA rights should be restored with the exception of Section 22–63–201, which allows schools to hire non-licensed individuals for electives/non-core subject classes. Additionally, we should not inadvertently reduce school staff as we still struggle to maintain a strong workforce as we come out of the COVID-19 pandemic.
However, there are portions of these proposals that I can not support and still have questions on. There are things in these proposals that should be decided on between the bargaining teams of our local union and the district. It is not our job to pass policies that will unintentionally subvert or interfere with ongoing negotiations. According to GP-9:13, it states “If Board members have opinions about the direction of the negotiations or the content of the CBAs once negotiations have commenced, they should provide that information to the Superintendent only.”
Therefore, it is my interpretation that this could violate GP-9:13 since this could interfere with the ongoing negotiations as we are not negotiators, nor should we pass policies that could impact ongoing negotiations. Suppose we pass this policy in its current form. In that case, we could be at risk of setting a dangerous precedent of passing policies during future negotiations with other bargaining units. I echo Dr. Carrie Olson’s question regarding how this plan supports the trust we have placed in Superintendent Marrero, especially after we voted (5–2) to extend his contract until 2025.
In June 2020, the Denver School Board unanimously voted to terminate our $1,000,000 contract with the Denver Police Department. This came out of a decade of advocacy from various community organizations. Yet, in less than two weeks, we moved forward with a vote and did not do our due diligence to solicit stakeholder feedback. As a result, we did not recognize the unintended consequences of this abrupt change to the Denver Public Schools community. I still stand by this resolution as one of the co-authors, but I acknowledge that that process could have been better, and I have been committed to ensuring that we do not repeat our past mistakes.
We must take a vote on March 24th. I can not support the current executive limitation as it is currently written, so I have drafted my own amended version of the executive limitation. I believe this is our third way. We must ensure this conversation is a global conversation that impacts all employees in Denver Public Schools. I have drafted a plan that restores the rights and protections to all educators in Denver Public Schools, increases the minimum wage in Denver Public Schools to $20.00 an hour beginning in the 2022–2023 school year, and continues to increase towards $25.00 an hour by the 2027–2028 school year, and eliminates the proposed uniformed district calendar. I was inspired to take on the minimum wage increase due to the increased workloads teachers from DCTA expressed due to the lack of para-educators and also hearing directly from our para-educators on the working conditions some are faced with while making wages where they have to work two or three jobs to support their families. I know this struggle first hand as I was once an innovation employee in Denver Public Schools that once made only $12.00 an hour. However, it is 2022, and I believe all employees deserve to be paid a thriving wage.
Finally, this amended executive limitation does not call out any school governance model because we must ensure that these protections and wage increases impact ALL employees in Denver Public Schools. I hope that after March 24th, we can co-create a crisis plan with the Superintendent to address the learning gaps the pandemic has further exacerbated. 7 out of 10 elementary students can not read on grade level, and 6 out of 10 students can not do math on grade level. Our priorities must be centered on student achievement, not adult politics. I am confident that this board is equipped to lead our district through challenging conversations and decisions.
DRAFT:
Executive Limitation Policy Proposal for Standard Employee Rights and Protections
EL-12 Employee Treatment
Add the following text to the existing policy:
Accordingly, the Superintendent will:
10. Provide the rights and protections of the DCTA collective bargaining agreement (as a floor) to all licensed teachers, regardless of the school model that Denver Public Schools has direct operational authority over. This will include (but is not limited to):
- Grievance procedures that include arbitration and/or mediation;
- Representation on School Leadership Teams (SLT), Collaborative School Committees (CSC) or other governance teams;
- Prompt notification of a complaint;
11. Provide the rights and protections of the Colorado Teacher Employment Compensation and Dismissal Act (TECDA) to all licensed teachers, regardless of the school model. with the exception of Section 22–63–201, which allows schools to hire non-licensed individuals for electives/non-core subject classes.
EL-13 Employee Compensation
Add the following text to the existing policy:
Accordingly, the Superintendent will:
8. Provide employees covered under collective bargaining units a transparent and publicly posted compensation schedule that:
- Correlates with teaching/classroom experience;
- Provides opportunities to receive additional compensation at high poverty schools;
9. Provide all hourly employees with a transparent and publicly posted compensation schedule that:
- Raises the minimum wage to $20.00 an hour beginning in the 2022–2023 school year and increases by $1.00 over the next five years;
- Ensure all employees currently making $20.00 an hour or more will see an increase of $2.00 beginning in the 2022–2023 school year;
Tay M. Anderson, Vice President
