Kalispell trustees table decision on teachers' grievance over KMS 'WIN' program classification

Trustees at the Kalispell Public Schools meeting heard detailed testimony and then tabled—without a final ruling—a motion to grant a level-3 grievance from the teachers' union arguing that the middle-school WIN ("What I Need") period has been implemented as instructional time and therefore violates the district's collective bargaining agreement.

The grievance, filed in October and advanced to the board as a level-3 matter, centers on whether WIN is a non-instructional duty period as the administration contends or an additional instructional assignment that requires compensation under the contract. Union representative Lynn Ryder told trustees, “When does not meet these standards. It requires teachers to manage large groups of students, facilitate district-approved lessons, and modify materials. Teachers assigned to WIN are owed compensation at a rate of one-fifth of their regular annual salary prorated for the duration of the assignment.”

Teachers who spoke to the board described the same pattern. "A duty is supervision. WIN is a class," said Becky Crane, a sixth-grade teacher at Kalispell Middle School, adding that typical WIN classes contain 25 to 30 students and involve minute-by-minute management, materials preparation and follow-up for student portfolios. Multiple teachers said they had spent team time and personal prep time preparing WIN lessons and that the period had, in practice, required active instruction and oversight.

Administrators described the program's intent and the implementation choices that followed deep staffing cuts. Principal Stuker and assistant superintendent Sarah Cole said WIN was designed as a flexible, choice-based period intended to preserve team planning time and to provide students with options (study hall, portfolio work, supervised recreation). They noted a deliberate move in January to a "choice board" set of options intended to reduce instructional workload and make WIN closer to a non-instructional duty. From the dais, the district pointed to review by the Montana School Boards Association and concluded there was no clear contractual violation at the time the grievance was filed.

Board members pressed both sides on the controlling point in time and the available remedies. Several trustees said the grievance must be judged using the facts as they were in October, when the union first filed, while others worried that a board ruling in favor of the union could force an abrupt conversion of WIN into a study hall or otherwise end the program as currently run. "If WIN is functioning as instruction, the district owes teachers a remedy," one trustee said; another added that a board ruling could eliminate programs that are benefitting students.

After extended discussion the board received a motion to grant the grievance (reverse the administration's position) and a second. Additional discussion followed, then a motion to table the decision to the next meeting was made and carried. The board left the grievance on the table and directed continued administrative engagement with teacher representatives; trustees noted options that include a temporary memorandum of understanding to define expectations for WIN in the near term and clarifying contract language in negotiations.

What's next: Trustees left the issue formally unresolved. The union retains the option to pursue arbitration if the parties cannot reach agreement. Administrators said they will continue to refine WIN operations and to work with staff on implementation details; several trustees urged that any durable solution be memorialized either in an MOU or in clearer contract language during upcoming bargaining.

The board returned later in the meeting to routine consent items and adjourned.