The Lawrence teachers’ union is accusing the school board of unfair labor practices for forcing high school English faculty to teach a full class schedule.

Wayne Kruse, president of the Lawrence Education Assn., said a formal complaint submitted to the Kansas Department of Human Resources challenges the board’s unilateral elimination this school year of an extra 50-minute planning period English teachers have had since 1970. With double planning periods, their class load was one section lighter than that of other teachers.

Deletion of the “working condition” for the 30 teachers at Free State High School and Lawrence High School should have been formally negotiated by LEA and the school board, said Kruse, a teacher at Quail Run School.

“If we do not follow proper processes and procedures, it opens a Pandora’s Box,” he said.

Contracts signed annually by the district’s 900 teachers have never included language guaranteeing English faculty a second planning period to grade students’ written work.

However, Kruse said LEA thinks “past practice” has the same force as if it had been written into the master agreement.

Supt. Randy Weseman said he believed LEA’s complaint was “ill-founded” and declared the board “has not committed any prohibited practice.”

“We expect the Board of Education will want to vigorously contest the charge,” he said.

‘Good-faith effort’

¢ See the LEA newsletter, which outlines the grievance

The superintendent also said his recollection was that the issue of ending this unique tradition was discussed with LEA negotiators and that no objection was registered.

“We made a good-faith effort to talk about it,” Weseman said.

However, Kruse said it wasn’t discussed at a formal contract session as required.

“It needs to be done at the negotiating table,” he said. “Decisions like this cannot be made between the chief negotiator for each of the teams.”

The board’s vote to end the arrangement with English faculty at LHS and Free State was part of a package of controversial fee increases and budget cuts designed to balance the 2002-2003 budget.

An estimated $100,000 was saved in labor costs by having English faculty teach class five periods each day instead of four, with one period for planning.

Scott Morgan, school board president, declined to comment.

David Schauner, general counsel for Kansas National Education Assn., submitted the grievance to the state Tuesday afternoon on behalf of LEA.

He said the core issue was maintaining integrity of the contract bargaining process.

“This isn’t really somebody wanting to work less,” he said. “This takes away an opportunity for teachers to work smarter.”

Response required

Schauner said restoration of the second planning period or additional financial compensation for English faculty teaching the extra class might satisfy the union.

The state is responsible for sending to the district a letter outlining the alleged prohibited practice. The district has 20 calendar days to respond in writing.

The department may play host to a mediation conference with LEA and district officials. If that doesn’t occur or doesn’t result in a settlement, a formal hearing will be held. Legal briefs can be filed and testimony taken from witnesses.

The human resources secretary will issue a decision, which is binding on both parties. It could take months for the secretary to make a decision public.

Either side can file a lawsuit in district court if unsatisfied.

The additional planning period for English teachers was established in 1970 to accommodate a change in LHS curriculum that placed greater emphasis on writing skills. Teachers were assigned four class periods and had two planning sections of 50 minutes each.

In 1995, LHS Principal Brad Tate modified the arrangement. Without apparent objection by LEA, Tate decided English teachers would teach one semester with four classes and two planning periods followed by a semester with five classes and one planning period.

When the board acted this time, LEA members privately voiced protests as early as March. Informal efforts more recently failed to resolve the dispute, Schauner said.

“It’s a mandatory subject for bargaining,” Schauner said. “They’d have to get us to agree. They didn’t do that.”

Schauner said he wasn’t convinced the district saved money by changing assignments of English faculty.

Negotiations threatened?

The last prohibited practice grievance against the district was filed in the 1980s over the method of counting teachers’ professional development credits.

Kruse said the decision to go forward with the new grievance was the product of consensus among LEA leaders. No vote of teachers in the union was sought on the issue, he said.

Teachers in the district were sent a special edition of LEA’s newsletter, “The Ledger,” explaining the action.

Weseman said LEA’s approach to dealing with this disagreement had the potential to make contract talks among teachers and board members divisive. Meetings leading to drafting of a 2003-2004 teacher contract began last week.

“This action by the teachers’ union potentially jeopardizes what we believe to have been a harmonious relationship between the board and the district’s teachers,” he said.

Al Gyles, a Free State math teacher and the lead LEA negotiator, said the dispute shouldn’t unravel commitment in the district to “interest-based” bargaining.

“We have been very successful in Lawrence at resolving issues without intervention of a third party,” Gyles said. “Unfortunately, this time we need help.”