Union and district debate when planning time must occur and whether collaborative PLCs can use planning blocks

Negotiators spent an extended portion of the session on Article 3 (professional day) language that would define when teachers’ scheduled planning time must occur and how collaborative planning (PLCs) may be scheduled.

The union proposal would require a teacher’s scheduled planning time to occur during the student contact day and would limit PLCs in weeks that include professional development days; the district repeatedly objected that the proposed sentence as written would be inapplicable to many certificated employees who are not assigned a traditional classroom schedule (instructional coaches, behavior specialists, library media specialists, counselors and other specialists).

District administrators acknowledged they support the concept — "if you are responsible for a classroom, your planning time should be within the beginning and the end of the student duty day" — but said the language must exclude staff who are not assigned to a classroom. Carissa, district administrator, told negotiators: “we are actually not in opposition to the concept,” and suggested language that would apply to teachers “with classroom responsibilities” rather than to all certificated staff.

Consecutive minutes and middle/secondary schedules

Negotiators also discussed whether planning time must be given as consecutive minutes (for example, a single 60-minute block). The district said it is not opposed in principle to requiring blocks of consecutive minutes where schedules permit, but described several practical exceptions (music and PE teachers who request split blocks to set up and put away equipment; staff in buildings with schedules that prevent a consecutive block). The district argued that drafting an absolute consecutive-minutes requirement could create scheduling problems and suggested the matter be worked out between the teacher and principal where schedules differ.

PLCs during PD weeks and planning days

The union asked to bar collaboration/PLC meetings during weeks that include a professional-development (PD) day and to restrict collaborative PL CS to full five-day weeks. The district said elementary and early-childhood sections already contain language that prohibits PLCs in weeks with designated PD dates and that striking the board’s current wording to require a full five-day week would be punitive and would prevent collaboration in weeks where teachers had been given a whole planning day by their building (e.g., a full planning day negotiated at the building level).

Why it matters: planning and PLC time affect teachers’ ability to prepare lessons, meet IEP/504 schedules and coordinate supports. Both sides said the goal — giving teachers useful planning time — is shared, but they are far apart on how to write a rule that covers classroom teachers while preserving needed flexibility for specialists and unusual schedules.

Ending

Negotiators did not adopt new language at this meeting. The district asked the union to propose revised, narrower language that would apply only to teachers with classroom responsibilities; the union asked the district to clarify how the current contract language is being interpreted and applied at the principal level. Both sides signaled willingness to continue discussion and to propose alternate wording.