Collaborative Conferencing

A Closer Look at Collaborative Conferencing

January 13, 2020 by JC Bowman, posted in JC Bowman, Leadership, Professional Development, Professional Educators of Tennessee, Tennessee Education

Young man presenting his ideas to his business team

Collaborative Conferencing is the process by which local boards of education and their professional employees meet, either directly or through representatives designated by the respective parties, to confer, consult, and discuss matters relating to employment. The process of collaborative conferencing includes the exchange of information, opinions, and proposals among the conferencing parties, as well as the use of the principles and techniques of interest-based collaborative problem-solving (IBCPS).

Our organization supports the right of employees to discuss their working conditions, and always have; however, a failed Industrial era model dubbed Collective Bargaining was previously utilized. Numerous researchers such as Michael Lovenheim, Alexander Willen, Andrew Coulson, Caroline Hoxby, Agustina Paglayan, and Terry Moe criticized this approach. The term “collective bargaining” was coined in 1891 by British socialist reformer Beatrice Webb.

Recognizing that this contentious 18th Century industrial model did not serve teachers and students in the 21st century, the Tennessee General Assembly made changes to the law in 2011. This more modern approach to addressing issues and removing barriers to cooperation, while including more voices on working conditions called Collaborative Conferencing. It has also been somewhat problematic, even though the intent was positive.

We disagree with some of the items like differentiated pay plans and other incentive compensation programs, including stipends and associated benefits being excluded. The process has clearly established a timeline for how this process must be completed. Any time the specifics of a law that is included in the legislation are being ignored it creates a risk for the entire results to be invalidated outright. All parties involved should want to ensure that the process is followed lawfully so that a Collaborative Conferencing agreement is successful.

In particular, the timeline written into the collaborative conferencing law was established to interact with school district budgeting processes, which align with City and County government budget processes and the state budgeting processes. Items that require funding are not effective until the local funding body has approved such funding in the budget. If the amount of funds appropriated is less than the amount required, the parties may continue to confer to reach agreement within the number of funds appropriated. It is a cycle.

Deviation from that cycle in the bureaucratic processes make alignment with local, state, and federal budgets difficult. Whether or not we agree with the timeline established in the law is moot. It is the law. Perhaps it is time that we look at needed changes to the law. However, until the law is changed, we have no other option but to follow the law.

The goal of collaborative conferencing has always been to include more, not less, teacher voices in the debate for teacher working conditions. It is a means to express an opinion and work toward solving disagreements on issues such as salaries or wages, grievance procedures, insurance, fringe benefits, working conditions, leave, and payroll deductions. Payroll deductions for political activities are expressively forbidden. It is also important to be reminded that state organizations do not initiate collaborative conferencing, rather it is done by local educators, who may be members of any organization.

Fortunately, collaborative conferencing is not the only manner to address critical employment issues. Working outside of the conferencing process with superintendents and other elected leaders may be much more beneficial, especially since the conferring process has not been enacted widely across the state. In addition, rather than an MOU (Memorandum of Understanding), many of these items should be placed within board policies to be more effective for educators, thus making it more difficult to take away from educators. Public education in Tennessee wins when we all work together through civil discourse to address our considerable issues.

JC Bowman is the Executive Director of Professional Educators of Tennessee, a non-partisan teacher association headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the author and the association are properly cited.

A Primer on Collaborative Conferencing in Tennessee

July 22, 2019 by JC Bowman, posted in Advocacy, Educators, JC Bowman, Leadership, Professional Educators of Tennessee, Tennessee Education

Seemingly every year we have to revisit the issue of collaborative conferencing for stakeholders and policymakers. The initial training in the principles and techniques of interest-based collaborative problem-solving for use in collaborative conferencing pursuant to this part was initially to be developed by the Tennessee Organization of School Superintendents (TOSS) in conjunction with representative organizations of school leaders and administrators and professional employees’ organizations. The Tennessee School Boards Association (TSBA) subsequently conducted the training in 2011. Representatives of Professional Educators of Tennessee, TOSS, TSBA, and the teacher’s union all participated in this training. A detailed report was sent to the Tennessee General Assembly on the activities of the training and participants in 2012.

Collaborative Conferencing is the process by which local boards of education and their professional employees meet, either directly or through representatives designated by the respective parties, to confer, consult, and discuss matters relating to certain terms and conditions of professional service as specified by the passing of the Professional Educators Collaborative Conferencing Act (PECCA). The process of collaborative conferencing includes the exchange of information, opinions, and proposals among the conferencing parties, as well as the use of the principles and techniques of interest-based collaborative problem-solving (IBCPS).

The term “interest-based collaborative problem-solving” is not defined by the new law. However, interest-based collaborative problem-solving is an increasingly popular method of multiparty consensus-building negotiation. It is based upon mutual interests and respect among the parties, jointly identifying problems, the open, free exchange of information, nurturing creativity in the generation of options, and a good-faith, non-adversarial approach to solving problems using agreed- to criteria. This is intended to lead to an agreement between the parties based upon consensus and mutual gain. In the perfect world all parties work together, and all members of the collaborative conferencing teamwork toward a common objective in unity. In education, that concept may not work, if one side chooses not to engage in consensus building and the other side decides to file unnecessary lawsuits. Professional Educators of Tennessee fervently supports the right of educators to discuss working conditions and salary with their employers.

In collaborative conferencing local boards are required to address: Salaries or wages; Grievance procedures; Insurance; Fringe benefits (not to include pensions or retirement programs of the Tennessee consolidated retirement system or locally authorized early retirement incentives); Working conditions, except those working conditions that are prescribed by federal law, state law, private act, municipal charter or rules and regulations of the State Board of Education, the Department of Education or any other department or agency of state or local government; Leave; and, Payroll deductions (except with respect to those funds going to political activities).

Subjects prohibited from conferencing include: Differentiated pay plans and other incentive compensation programs, including stipends, and associated benefits that are based on professional employee performance that exceeds expectations, or that aid in hiring and retaining highly qualified teachers for hard-to-staff schools and subject areas; Expenditure of grants or awards from federal, state or local governments and foundations or other private organizations that are expressly designed for specific purposes; Evaluation of professional employees pursuant to federal or state law or State Board of Education policy; Staffing decisions and State Board of Education or local board of education policies relating to innovative educational programs under § 49-1-207; innovative high school programs under Title 49, chapter 15; virtual education programs under Title 49, chapter 16; and other programs for innovative schools or school districts that may be enacted by the general assembly; All personnel decisions concerning assignment of professional employees, including, but not limited to, filling of vacancies, assignments to specific schools, positions, professional duties, transfers within the system, layoffs, reductions in force, and recall. No agreement shall include provisions that require personnel decisions to be determined on the basis of tenure, seniority or length of service; and, payroll deductions for political activities.

The law was very clear on deadlines and specific dates. The submission (by fifteen percent (15%) or more of the professional employees) of a written request to conduct collaborative conferencing with the board of education, must be done not before October 1 and no later than November 1. The selection and appointment of the professional employee and board of education representatives must be done no later than December 1. The transmission to the board of the confidential poll results and the names and positions of the appointed representatives must be done by January 1. This is the law. If the law needs to be changed, all groups should work together through the Tennessee General Assembly to make the appropriate changes.

All educators and all professional employee organizations have the same rights under PECCA. The school board does not have to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), and the MOU should be “prepared jointly” according to the law. We would suggest that putting some of these items into Board Policy might actually lead to more consistent policy and better working conditions than an MOU that would expire on a specific date. The law also mandates that any items that require funding cannot become effective “until the local funding body has approved such funding in the budget.”

The Tennessee General Assembly was clear in 2011 that they wanted to get politics out of our public schools while supporting teachers’ rights to fight for higher wages and better working conditions. The PECCA legislation made clear that directors may communicate with teachers on the subjects of collaborative conferencing through any means, medium or format the director chooses. Legislators had anticipated that increased collaboration would benefit the women and men in our classrooms with better working conditions, improved dialogue and mutual respect thus benefitting all of our students. There is still work left to do to accomplish this challenging objective.

– – –

JC Bowman is the Executive Director of Professional Educators of Tennessee, a non-partisan teacher association headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the author and the association are properly cited. For more information on this subject or any education issue please contact Professional Educators of Tennessee.

Collaborative Conferencing Limits Educators

October 25, 2018 by JC Bowman, posted in Advocacy, JC Bowman, Leadership, Professional Educators of Tennessee, Tennessee Education

boss blaming an employee

In October, across the state, educators have an opportunity to decide if they wish to engage in a process called “Collaborative Conferencing.” In other industries they may refer to it as an “Interest-Based Collaborative Problem Solving,” which is an increasingly popular method of multiparty consensus-building. In education that concept may not work, if one side chooses not to engage in consensus building and the other side decides to file unnecessary lawsuits. Professional Educators of Tennessee fervently supports the right of educators to discuss working conditions and salary with their employers.

In 2011, the Tennessee General Assembly passed the Professional Educators Collaborative Conferencing Act (Public Chapter 378). So, it is not surprising that we are frequently asked about our position on Collaborative Conferencing. Currently Collaborative Conferencing, also known as PECCA, only occurs in about 12 districts around the state. Only certain subjects can be discussed. And some subjects are completely prohibited.

Subjects that can be discussed include: Salaries or wages; Grievance procedures; Insurance; Fringe benefits (not to include pensions or retirement programs of the Tennessee consolidated retirement system or locally authorized early retirement incentives); Working conditions, except those working conditions that are prescribed by federal law, state law, private act, municipal charter or rules and regulations of the State Board of Education, the Department of Education or any other department or agency of state or local government; Leave; and, Payroll deductions (except with respect to those funds going to political activities).

Subjects that are prohibited include: Differentiated pay plans and other incentive compensation programs, including stipends, and associated benefits that are based on professional employee performance that exceeds expectations, or that aid in hiring and retaining highly qualified teachers for hard-to-staff schools and subject areas; Expenditure of grants or awards from federal, state or local governments and foundations or other private organizations that are expressly designed for specific purposes; Evaluation of professional employees pursuant to federal or state law or State Board of Education policy; Staffing decisions and State Board of Education or local board of education policies relating to innovative educational programs under § 49-1-207; innovative high school programs under Title 49, chapter 15; virtual education programs under Title 49, chapter 16; and other programs for innovative schools or school districts that may be enacted by the general assembly; All personnel decisions concerning assignment of professional employees, including, but not limited to, filling of vacancies, assignments to specific schools, positions, professional duties, transfers within the system, layoffs, reductions in force, and recall. No agreement shall include provisions that require personnel decisions to be determined on the basis of tenure, seniority or length of service; and, Payroll deductions for political activities.

In a modern world, it doesn’t seem that placing limits or prohibitions helps local districts, educators, students or stakeholders on emerging topics. However, we have been disappointed by PECCA, and think that we may want to discuss items outside the scope of Collaborative Conferencing, such as differentiated pay plans, expenditure of grants or awards, evaluation and staffing decisions or other issues like school safety, curriculum/materials and/or other rapidly emerging issues. Although we can probably agree that banning payroll deductions for political activities is probably a good thing for public education.

Just as we do, many teachers see the flaw in the system: you can discuss salary but you cannot discuss, differentiated pay plans and other incentive compensation programs, including stipends, and associated benefits that are based on professional employee performance that exceeds expectations, or that aid in hiring and retaining highly qualified teachers for hard-to-staff schools and subject areas. Then why do we even discuss salary at all? That decision is already set in a formula and largely determined with small room for debate or discussion. It is probably why so few districts and educators choose to engage in Collaborative Conferencing.

Currently any school board in the state has the authority to address any terms and conditions through board policy. In other words, while the board is required to participate in conferencing if the professional employees vote to participate, nothing in the PECCA requires the board to agree on terms or conditions or enter into a memorandum of understanding if agreement has not been reached. Which is why we must keep lines of communication open.

Are there other options? We believe so and toward that end, Professional Educators of Tennessee has begun to establish Education Leaders Councils in some districts to accomplish more for teachers. It will help us cultivate true consensus building and address more critical issues.

We know that some of our members oppose Collaborative Conferencing, which leads to less than optimal turnout in some districts. In fact, in many districts those voting for Collaborative Conferencing is barely over 50% and still excludes people from the process. That is simply not fair.

We hope we can work to address critical issues for educators and our members through our Education Leaders Council. This may require future legislation, but any district can choose to meet with their employees at any time. Our desire and intent are simple: if you vote for Collaborative Conferencing or if you vote against Collaborative Conferencing, always choose Professional Educators of Tennessee as your representative, and we will work with our local leaders to promote the interest of educators in the local district, not an agenda pushed by a national organization. We must work together, and it is clear that Collaborative Conferencing limits educators.

– – –