Every District’s Joint Committee must hold its first meeting to discuss RIF issues by December 1, 2011
The Education Reform Act (commonly known as Senate Bill 7) created new rules for the reduction in force (RIF) and recall of honorably discharged teachers. In a nutshell, the old seniority system is abolished, and the new rules require teachers to be placed in one of four groups, with group one to be the first to be dismissed, and group four the last to be dismissed (and the first to be recalled). Group one consists of non-tenured teachers who have not yet been evaluated; a teacher’s placement within group two, three or four depends on his or her performance evaluations, with the highest evaluated teachers being placed in group four.
These new rules for dismissals and recalls are effective immediately and apply where the notice of dismissal is given during the current (2011-2012) or future school years. However, many, if not most, school districts will continue to operate under RIF procedures mandated by their collective bargaining agreements. Collective bargaining agreements that were entered into by January 1, 2011, and which have not yet expired, will continue to govern RIF issues until June 30, 2013. After June 30, 2013, the Education Reform Act takes precedence over conflicting contract provisions. The Act does not state whether unwritten contract provisions, such as past practices or informal agreements regarding teacher seniority, have any role in RIF decisions through June 30, 2013; arguably, they do not.
Regardless of whether a collective bargaining agreement currently addresses RIF issues, the Act mandates that a joint committee be formed and hold its first meeting no later than December 1, 2011. The joint committee (hereinafter, “JC”) is to consist of an equal number of school board and teacher representatives, selected by the school board and the teachers (or the teachers’ union), with each member to have one vote. The Act does not require any specific number of JC members (only equal representation at the table), nor does it state whether the members are to receive any compensation or reduction in duties for their service. The school district may be required to bargain these issues, but if impasse occurs, the school district should implement its plan for establishing and running the joint committee.
The Act lists five duties of the joint committee
- The JC must consider whether to modify the Act’s default rules regarding the placement of certain teachers in either group two or three.
- The JC must consider whether to adopt alternative rules regarding the placement of teachers in group four (the highest performing group) based on factors outside of evaluations that relate to the school district’s or program’s educational objectives.
- The JC may consider whether performance evaluations prepared by another school district are to be used in the sorting of teachers into the four ranked groups.
- If a school district’s current evaluation plan is inconsistent with the Performance Evaluation Reform Act’s rating system, the school district must consult with the JC on how to assign compatible ratings for purposes of determining the order of teacher dismissal.
- The JC has limited authority to investigate whether experienced teachers are receiving disproportionately lower performance evaluations than they received in the past. After a school district prepares an annual sequence of honorable dismissal list, a JC member can demand that the school district provide information regarding the prior and most recent evaluation of its teachers, with each teacher identified only by the length of his or her service. If the review of this list reveals a troubling trend, the JC can submit a report to both the school board and the union.
Except for its five duties under the Act, the JC has no authority to modify the sequence of teacher dismissal. Where the JC has authority to act, it must reach an agreement, by majority vote, no later than February 1 of any given school year for that agreement to affect the sequence of teacher dismissals during that school year. If no agreement is reached by February 1, the Act’s default rules control the sequence of teacher dismissal. Subject to the February 1 deadline, the JC’s agreement shall continue to apply to the sequence of teacher dismissals until the agreement is amended or modified by majority vote of the committee.
Does your CBA already address RIF?
For school districts with an existing collective bargaining agreement that addresses RIF issues, it may seem unnecessary and premature to form a JC now, where the collective bargaining agreement will continue to govern the sequence of teacher dismissals until it expires, or until June 30, 2013, whichever comes first. However, the Act provides, without exception, that all school districts’ JCs must hold a first meeting no later than December 1, 2011. The committee is not required to accomplish anything at this first meeting, but neither is it prohibited from reaching agreements prior to the expiration of existing contracts. For those school districts with teacher rating systems that are inconsistent with the Act, there is no reason not to decide now how the ratings will transition to the new system. And because a teacher’s position in the coveted group four may depend on that teacher’s last three evaluations, decisions made now by the JC may affect the sequence of teacher dismissals in the 2013-2014 school year.