Grand Forks school board upholds superintendent: flex time and Red River ‘rider time’ not extra paid period

The Grand Forks Public Schools Board of Education on June 16 denied Level 4 grievances from the Grand Forks Education Association, concluding that middle‑school “flex time” and Red River High School’s “rider time” do not meet the contract definition of an additional sixth period that would require extra pay.

The board’s decision follows a formal grievance process under Grand Forks Public Schools policy 41‑20 and the district’s teacher negotiated agreement, Article 8, Section 4. After testimony from building principals, district administrators and GFEA leaders, the board convened an executive session for legal advice and then returned to open session to vote to deny the appeals.

The issue centered on whether 25–30 minute intervention blocks held twice weekly—implemented at Red River High School as a 30‑minute block and piloted or run as 25–28 minute blocks at middle schools—constitute an assigned extra class period under Article 8, Section 4 of the negotiated agreement. The Grand Forks Education Association requested back pay and ongoing hourly compensation equal to “one hour per week” for affected teachers, with back pay dating to the pilot or initial implementation dates cited in the grievance materials.

Superintendent Dr. Terry Brenner recommended denying the grievances in written responses dated May 28, 2025. Brenner’s memorandum, read into the record at the meeting, said the district’s review of the contract language and implementation “respectfully denies the grievance” because the district views the flex/rider blocks as flexible intervention or enrichment time rather than a traditional assigned sixth instructional period. Brenner’s memos concluded that the structure and teacher discretion involved do not meet the contractual definition that would trigger the one‑eighth salary compensation in Article 8, Section 4.

Building principals described how the programs were developed and implemented. Dr. Christopher Dearson, principal of Red River High School, told the board that Red River’s “rider time” grew from teacher feedback and professional development work beginning in the 2021–22 school year; teachers and a guiding coalition designed a model that began on April 2, 2024, and continued into the 2024–25 school year. Theodore Shai, principal of Valley Middle School, Travis Neil, principal of South Middle School, and Dave Nowatski, principal of Schroeder Middle School, described similar teacher‑led guiding‑coalition processes for implementing middle‑school “flex time.” Principals said the time is used for reteaching, small‑group intervention, guided practice and making up assessments and that teachers are expected to operate within their licensed content areas.

Representing the Grand Forks Education Association, Brady Olson, GFEA president, argued that the district’s implementation places additional instructional and planning demands on teachers and that, in practice, the combined twice‑weekly blocks equal one additional period per week. Olson told the board that GFEA’s position is based on interviews with teachers and an interpretation of the negotiated agreement’s language about an administratively assigned extra period.

Board members asked about specifics administrators used to design the schedules. Catherine Gillich, associate superintendent, read a March 25, 2025 memo that the district circulated before the middle‑school pilot. The memo described flex time as a 25–28 minute, twice‑weekly block created by banking minutes from regular periods or by supplanting advisory time; it said the block is intended for RTI (response to intervention) work, that teachers should work within their licensed content area, and that guiding coalitions at each building would set the local model and timeline. Middle‑school pilots ran with a dry run the week of April 15, 2025, and a pilot period roughly April 22–May 15, 2025; principals said those dates (and subsequent local choices) are documented in the materials provided to the board.

GFEA sought both retroactive pay dating to the pilot or initial implementation and direction to follow Article 8, Section 4 in future scheduling. The superintendent’s written response denied those remedies for three legal and contractual reasons: (1) the district’s interpretation that the intervention blocks do not meet the definition of an administratively assigned traditional sixth period; (2) teacher participation and the building‑level, teacher‑driven design fall within professional responsibilities; and (3) the contract’s compensation clause applies only to traditionally assigned additional classroom periods. For Red River, the superintendent also noted that the GFEA’s request for back pay was untimely under the one‑year filing window described in policy 41‑20.

After questions from board members about prep time, rotation of students, and whether teachers are being asked to teach outside their licensure, the board met in executive session under North Dakota Century Code provisions cited at the meeting (NDCC 44‑04‑19.12 and NDCC 44‑04‑19.2) to receive legal advice. The board reconvened in open session and voted to deny both Level 4 grievances; the board said it will issue a written decision to the parties.

The board’s action preserves the superintendent’s previous determinations and leaves in place the district’s working definitions and local pilot structures described by principals. The board indicated it would prepare and circulate a written decision explaining its legal rationale and next steps in accordance with district grievance procedures.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to convene executive session for legal advice (NDCC 44‑04‑19.12; 44‑04‑19.2): Passed (roll call recorded in meeting minutes). - Motion to deny both Level 4 grievances (GFEA appeals concerning middle‑school flex time and Red River rider time): Passed by roll call vote; the board announced a majority vote in favor of denial and that a written decision will follow.

What remains unsettled

GFEA says it will continue to press that the combined twice‑weekly blocks constitute a compensable additional period and sought monetary relief for teachers who believed they were doing the work of an extra class. Administrators and principals maintained the programs were teacher‑designed interventions that did not change assigned teaching loads in the way the negotiated agreement describes. The board’s denial resolves the appeal at the school board level but, per the grievance procedure and applicable timelines, leaves open any further contractual or legal steps the association might pursue.