Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Labor Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Middlesex teachers' association issues no-confidence memorandum over block schedule rollout
Summary
The Middlesex Education Association presented a signed memorandum and a formal vote of no confidence in the administration's implementation of a new block schedule, citing contract violations, inadequate training, and diminished staff morale; the board did not take formal action during the meeting.
Meetings Petroski, speaking for the Middlesex Education Association, told the Middlesex Borough Board of Education on the record that the association had issued a vote of no confidence in the district's implementation process for the new block schedule.
The memorandum, delivered at public comment, criticized the rollout for violating collective-bargaining language, failing to provide adequate training or planning time, sidelining teacher input, and creating a hostile facilitation environment. "The administration has chosen to abandon that partnership in favor of a unilateral action disregarding established norms of mutual respect," Meetings Petroski said.
The association said the schedule was implemented despite repeated faculty concerns during the year leading up to the change, and that alternatives consistent with the collective-bargaining agreement were ignored. Petroski also described the consultant retained to assist with the transition as having created a "hostile and demoralizing environment" that led the committee to disband and left teachers feeling excluded.
The memorandum requested a formal reevaluation process before the next academic year, including: a clear timeline for review with options to modify or delay the schedule; a formal review of contract compliance and the implementation process; meaningful representation for a faculty committee with authority over future revisions; inclusion of parents and students in the review; and targeted professional development and planning time aligned to the block model.
Petroski said the memorandum was signed by staff but did not specify an exact signature count in the meeting record. The association framed the action as a call for transparency and renewed collaboration rather than a rejection of block scheduling as a pedagogical concept.
No formal board motion or vote on the association's memorandum was recorded during the meeting. Board members heard the presentation during the public-comment period and later continued with the meeting agenda without taking formal action on the memorandum.
What happened next: the board proceeded to its posted business, including multiple personnel and policy items, which were considered later in the meeting.
Why it matters: teachers and staff said implementation problems are affecting morale and classroom preparation at a time when the district is also experiencing resignations and unfilled positions. The association asked the board to pause and reexamine the schedule implementation process in a way that the association said would restore adherence to the collective-bargaining agreement and rebuild trust.
The board did not announce a timeline for responding to the association at the public meeting. The association requested that any reexamination include a representative faculty committee, documented contract-review steps, and a plan for additional professional development and planning time.
