Fargo board keeps negotiating unit intact after debate over reclassifying counselors, SLPs and coaches

The Fargo Public Schools Board of Education voted 7–2 to keep the same negotiating unit used in the district’s 2023–25 teacher contract for the 2025–27 negotiations, rejecting proposals to reclassify several groups of staff away from the teacher bargaining unit.

Board members cast final votes after nearly two hours of public comment and a lengthy staff presentation on how the district interpreted a recent North Dakota Supreme Court decision affecting which employees meet the statutory definition of “teacher.” The motion that passed directed that “the job groupings or positions recognized as part of the negotiating unit for the 2023–2025 contract remain the same for the 2025–2027 contract negotiations.”

The vote matters because removing staff from the negotiated teacher agreement would change who collectively bargains over pay, benefits and working conditions. Public commenters — including classroom counselors, instructional coaches and speech-language pathologists — told the board their day-to-day work is instructional and aligned to state standards, and that removing those roles from the teacher contract would misrepresent their duties.

“I come before you not just as an instructional coach, but as an educator, a teacher at heart, in practice, and in purpose,” Misty Miller, an instructional coach at Centennial Elementary, said during public comment. “We do not simply support teachers. We are teachers and our work is directly tied to student achievement.”

Several speakers described how their duties include planned lessons, small-group instruction, co-teaching, progress reporting tied to students’ Individualized Education Program goals and other tasks they said are textbook examples of instruction. An anonymous speech-language pathologist who addressed the board described local recruitment pressure and asked for “the same security as our teaching partners with a negotiated contract.” Adrian Eider, a counselor at Fargo South High School, said counselors “provide direct instruction, assess student progress, and collaborate with other educators daily” and noted counselors hold teaching licenses through the North Dakota Education Standards and Practices Board.

Board discussion focused on legal risk and the district’s process. Melissa (chair of the negotiations committee) summarized the district’s review following the North Dakota Supreme Court’s decision in Fargo Education Association v. Fargo School District 1 (case number 20240151). The court applied a three-part test drawn from statute: an employee must (1) be employed by the district, (2) be licensed or approved to teach by the Educational Standards and Practices Board (ESPB), and (3) be employed primarily as a classroom teacher. Melissa said the Supreme Court decision clarified prior case law but did not fully define what “employed primarily as a classroom teacher” means in practice — leaving judgment calls for local boards.

Tara, the district’s general counsel, told the board her legal advice had been to apply the statute’s plain language and that the district’s obligation was to defend any reclassification in possible future litigation. “I am your general counsel and at the end of the day, my obligation is to the district,” she said, adding that the district’s analysis focused on the third prong and that removing employees who actually meet the statute would carry litigation risk.

Jeff (Human Capital) described the operational review: the human capital team compared job descriptions to the three-part test, sought clarification from supervisors and scheduled group meetings with affected staff. Jeff said many positions involve student-facing instruction but the team distinguished roles they judged to be “primarily classroom teacher” from those that are supportive or supplemental. He said staff input and accurate job descriptions remain central to any reclassification.

Board members pressed staff about timing and process. The district accepted a petition from the Fargo Education Association on Jan. 14 recognizing the negotiating unit under the statutory definition; the statute requires the union to submit evidence it represents a majority of the bargaining unit by March 1. Board members discussed the compressed timeline and the possibility of additional staff review; a motion to postpone the decision to the Feb. 24 meeting failed 3–6.

When the board voted on the primary motion to retain the prior negotiating unit, two members voted no. The motion passed 7–2.

The board did not adopt a blanket new definition of “classroom teacher” at the meeting. Trustees and staff said human capital will continue to work with employee groups, revise job descriptions where appropriate and present any recommended reclassifications to the board if future changes are proposed.

Votes at a glance

- Motion: “The job groupings or positions recognized as part of the negotiating unit for the 2023–2025 contract remain the same for the 2025–2027 contract negotiations.” Mover: Melissa (chair, negotiations committee). Second: Namal. Outcome: approved 7–2.

What’s next

Human Capital will continue meeting with employee groups and supervisors to refine job descriptions and document work performed. The Fargo Education Association must submit evidence by March 1 that it represents a majority of the recognized negotiating unit if it seeks formal recognition under statute. Any future proposals to reclassify employees would return to the board for a formal determination.

Ending note

Board members repeatedly emphasized that maintaining a staff member on or off the negotiated teacher agreement should not be read as a statement about the value of that person’s work. “No matter what happens, whether somebody is on or off the negotiated agreement is in no way a value judgment on your role at FPS,” Melissa said.