OBJECTIVES

• Unify SPED departments at EGUSD in expressing concerns as they relate job expectations and compensation.
• Establish transparency between all SPED sites to identify concerns and present these concerns to the district for bargaining.
• Present what other teachers’ unions in California and nationally have negotiated. When compared to EGEA contact, review whether SPED is being properly compensated for the work that we do.

What our EGEA contract says about Special Education

Our present EGEA contract promises (see Appendix A) to monitor SPED in the interest of making the district more sensitive to the needs of SPED teachers and to assure SPED is treated equally in comparison with regular education teachers. If as a SPED teacher, you are satisfied with the current EGEA terms and agree SPED is treated equitably as general education teachers, then abstain from reading further.

The tentative agreement signed May 20th, 2016 calls for EGEA and district to form a subcommittee whose focus is to identify parties’ interests and options, and make recommendations for future bargaining. This committee will begin meeting in January 2017. (see APPENDIX B)

What other union contracts have bargained for to support SPED

The following recommendations are proactive solutions collected from existing union contracts throughout the state of California and the top ranking districts nationally. Union contracts were chosen based on 1) proximity to EGUSD 2) comparable size to EGUSD 3) national rankings and recommendations for SPED programs based on a variety of resources including Department of Education (DOE), United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA), San Diego Education Association (SDEA), California Teachers Association (CTA), Arizona Teacher Association (ATA), Maryland State Education Association (MSEA), great schools.org, Autismspeaks.org, and many others.

The grid labeled “Key Suggestions for Bargaining” is a quick guide to ideas that are currently being done in other districts. For a more complete definition of these policies, see “DEFINING SPECIAL EDUCATION BARGAINING IDEAS” below.

Key Suggestions for Bargaining

Caseloads 1.2.0

Multiple unions in California and abroad have a district cap despite state recommendations.

RSP-24

SCC-12

ED/ASD/ABSS/ILS-12

Education Specialist- 20

Equal Distribution of work by caseload 1.4.0

Factors established for dividing equal caseload.

Defining Behaviors appropriate for intensive SPED programs 1.6.2.

At present there are no guidelines for placement. This has resulted in teachers being placed in dangerous and hostile work environments.Placement guidelines need to be negotiated so we can hold district accountable in their placements.

Equal Expectation review board

1.5.0/ 1.8.0

If teacher feels workload unequal, Equal Expectation review board will review caseload and decide how to best compensate

Least Restrictive Environment Review Board 1.9.0

If site feels placement in SCC classroom is inappropriate and dangerous because of documented IEPbehaviors, review is conducted to see if the students’ needs are met without compromising safety of students and staff. Review must be made prior to district program specialist agreement to placement.

Compensation formula for going over caseload cap

See 1.10.0

All behavior intensive programs and intensive SCC should be compensated when prep is impacted. 1.6.1

Because of the unpredictable needs of the students and the intensity of the behavior, teachers’ prep periods are frequently impacted. In some cases, the student’s behavior is so severe that preps cannot be granted. At present, certain teachers are compensated, while others are told to not be available during their prep. If prep cannot be granted, teacher should have the option of compensation or have a sub fill for a prep.

IF CAPS ARE NOT AGREED UPON, THEN PERHAPS WE COULD NEGOTIATE STIPENDS UNDER THE PREMISE THAT THE WORKLOAD AND ASSOCIATED DEMANDS ARE NOT EQUIVOLANT?

With tentative agreement promising a sub committee, in the future, could we request a separate bargaining survey for SPED to aid the sub committee and therefore EGEA in identifying areas of concern specific to SPED?

DEFINING SPECIAL EDUCATION BARGAINING IDEAS

1.1.0 The District and the Association recognize that several variables impact the workload of Special Education staff. The District will attempt to maintain caseloads or class sizes as set forth below, the workloads will be balanced based on the criteria set forth below.

1.1.0 Definitions:

1.1.1 “Caseload” refers to the number of students with IEP’s for whom the special education teacher is assigned, and each student is counted as “one” no matter the needs or severity.

1.1.2 “Education Specialist” is equivalent to and has the same meaning as “special education teacher”. Students primary disability is SLD, can be supported in a mild/moderate setting, typically requires most instruction in a special education classroom and not behavior related.

1.1.2a- “Education Specialist” could service primary disabilities associated with behavior (ED, OHI) or placement assessments recommend behavior support programs.

1.1.3“Workload” refers to all of the responsibilities required of the special education teacher and is based on the severity of the student needs.

1.1.4. “Resource Specialist” is a special education teacher who provides instruction and services to students who are assigned to a regular classroom teacher for more than fifty percent (50%) of their school day and whose needs have been identified in an individualized education plan.

1.1.5. “Co-teaching”, or having two teachers in the classroom, is used in the District to provide an inclusive setting for students with IEPs while ensuring that they are in the least restrictive environment as recommended by their IEP team. A co-teaching classroom typically contains a general education teacher and a special education teacher in the classroom. Paraprofessionals and others may also work in this setting to provide additional support.

1.1.6. “Separate Setting Classes” is all other special education classrooms that potentially support students for the duration of the entire school day.

1.2.0 Caseloads:

The District will attempt to maintain caseloads or class sizes as set forth below:

1.2.1.Caseloads for Resource Specialist - 24

1.2.2.. Education Specialist: Mild/Moderate: 20

1.2.3. Education Specialist: Moderate/Severe: 12

1.2.4.Education Specialist: primary disabilities associated with behavior (ABSS): 12

1.2.5 Resource Specialist: 24

1.2.6. Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DHH/Deaf Education): 10

1.2.7. Speech Language Pathologists (SLP), Elementary level: 55 (inclusive of a maximum of five [5] speech improvement students and five [5] RTI cases)

1.2.8. Speech and Language Pathologists (SLP), Secondary level: 55 IEPs

1.2.9. Speech and Language Pathologists (SLP), Early Childhood: 40 (inclusive of a maximum of five [5] speech improvement students and five [5] RTI cases).

1.2.10. Special educator caseloads that include both Mild/Moderate and Moderate/Severe students shall be reduced proportionally to reflect the above.

1.2.11. The caseload of the SLPs serving both school-age and preschool children shall be reduced proportionally to reflect the amount of the SLP’s assignment devoted to preschool.

1.3.0. Class Size for Separate Setting Classes

The District will attempt to maintain self-contained class instruction settings at twelve (12) students.

1.3.1 Other special education positions such as psychologists, teachers of adaptive physical education, and teachers of physically handicapped students, will be monitored by Committee set forth in Section 1.8.0. Such unit members having concerns about workload may refer them to the Committee.

1.4.0 Equitable Distribution of Workload

Caseloads shall be equitably distributed at each school site not by equal caseload numbers, but based on the application of the Elements of Special Education Workload identified and defined in by theelements in this Section.

1.4.1. Preparation Time – Includes time within instructional day to prepare instruction.

1.4.2 Elements of Special Education Workload-The District and the Association agree on the following as the Elements to be applied when equitably distributing workloads at each school site, and that these Elements are to be included in the Workload model developed by the parties

pursuant to this Section, noting that such assignments shall conform to the caseload totals identified in this Article.

1.4.3 Specialized Academic Instruction – Includes direct instruction and indirect service such as consultation with general education teachers, co-teaching, modification/adaptation of curriculum, and planning with related service staff.

1.4.4. Assessments and Reassessments – Includes initial assessments, interim assessments, three year reviews, and other special education assessments as needed.

1.4.5 IEP Management Responsibilities – Includes program development, coordination of services, parent communication related to the IEP, annual review, progress monitoring and reporting, behavioral assessments, manifestation determinations, and behavior plans.

1.4.6 Directing the Work of Paraprofessionals – Includes directing work, training and planning for one to one aides, and other paraprofessionals.

1.4.7 Other Special Education Assignments – Includes lunch or recess supervision of special education students, special education bus duty and RTI duties.

1.4.8 Intensity of Services and Behaviors- Includes internal and external services managed, intensity and frequency of behaviors managed.

1.5.0. Workloads shall be equitable at school/work sites.

The requirement that workloads be equitably distributed at work/school sites, based on application of the Elements of Special Education Workload in Section 1.4

1.5.1. The site administrator shall assign, in consultation with special education certificated staff, students to case managers in a way that best serves students and provides for a positive work environment. If a certificated special education teacher has a concern about inequity in their workload, she/he may meet together with the administrator to discuss the situation and collaboratively resolve the concern. In such cases, the workload formula form (APPEDIX C, APPENDIX D )shall be completed by the teachers at the school/work site and shall be used as a basis for determining the most equitable workload distribution at that site.

1.5.2 In the event that a concern regarding the equitable distribution of workloads at a school/work site cannot be resolved at the site level through 1.5.1 above, then the concern may be presented for resolution to the Equal Expectation Committee.

1.5.3 IEP Meetings- The District agrees to make every effort within the limitations of state and federal law to ensure that IEP meetings not occur beyond the contractually defined work day and meeting allocations. After securing prior approval from the unit member’s supervisor to schedule the meeting beyond the defined workday, unit members shall be compensated at hourly rate for required IEP meetings that take place beyond the defined work day.

1.5.3a If teachers are not able to complete IEP paperwork within the allocated time, then administration shall meet with the teacher and the department chair to review whether filing a resolution with the Equal Expectation Committee is warranted.

1.6.0 Behaviorally Intensive Programs

1.6.1 Caseloads for intensive programs including Physically Handicapped (PH), Medically Physically Challenged (MPC), Emotionally Disturbed programs (ABSS) and, Severe Autism, ILS, shall recognize the unpredictable nature of behaviors require constant supervision and flexibility of the teacher to be available at all times during the course of the work day. In the interest of best practice and supports for the students, teachers need to be available to assist. Therefore teachers will be granted the option to take a prep or waive their prep for FTE compensation. If the teacher opts for a prep, the administration needs to provide an equally credentialed teacher to cover the prep.

1.6.2 The district will recognize the intensity of behavior in the defined programs can create a dangerous and hostile work environment. The union recognizes the districts intent to service more students on a public school campus. In order to ensure the safety of teachers and students, when students are placed on a public school campus from a) contracted non publics b)residential c)out of district d) intra-district transfer, the district will agree to not place students who have exhibited the following behaviors within 1 year prior of approved traditional district calendar days prior to the IEP placement date.

1.6.2a- Violence, as defined by fighting, biting, punching, kicking, property destruction, scratching, using anything as a weapon to cause physical injuries, any other actions prompting restrain of the student by staff

1.6.2b- Sexual misconduct, including sexual touching without consent, or forcing a victim to engage in sexual touching, intentional exposure of genitals, offers or request of sexual touching or intercourse, sexual contact or intercourse of any kind.

1.6.3 The district will review and submit all IEP paperwork (including psych reports, behavior intervention plans, discipline reports, etc) to the intended site prior to agreeing to placement. The intended site admin and supporting staff (teacher, school psych, mental health therapist) will review the paperwork to ensure placement meets the needs of the student and the safety of the site. (Supported by ED Code 49079)

.

1.6.4. In the event the site does not feel the placement is appropriate in reference, the site has the right, in the interest of safety for the student, student body, staff, liability of the district, all of which relates to the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE), to call for a review by the LRE committee outlined in Section 1.9.0.

1.7.0 Low Incident Programs

1.7.1 Caseloads for low incidence itinerant programs including Visually Impaired (VI), Physically Handicapped (PH), Medically Physically Challenged (MPC) and Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DHH) shall consider the number of direct service hours per month, number of consultation hours per month, number of indirect hours per month (professional, parent, other agency contacts, recordkeeping, training paraprofessionals) and travel time.

1.8.0 Workload Committee

1.8.1 Special education workloads referenced in section 1.4.0, shall be monitored by the Equal Expectation Committee in accordance with Section 1.5.0. The Committee shall be comprised of four (4) individuals appointed by the union and four (4) individuals appointed by the District. The Committee shall meet on a monthly basis throughout the school year, with a schedule of meetings mutually determined for the subsequent school year by the final meeting of the preceding school year. Meeting locations and meeting chair responsibilities shall rotate between the District and the Association. Committee members will be compensated by the district per hourly rate for their meeting times.

1.8.2 If it is determined by the Committee in 1.8.1 that concerns exist relative to workloads as described, the Committee shall explore all possible solutions.

1.9.0 Least Restrictive Environment Committee

1.9.1 Least Restrictive Environment as defined in Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Title I, Part B, Sec. 612,a, 5:

(5)Least restrictive environment.--

(A)In general.--To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are not disabled, and special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.

(B)Additional requirement.--

(i)In general.--A State funding mechanism shall not result in placements that violate the requirements of subparagraph (A), and a State shall not use a funding mechanism by which the State distributes funds on the basis of the type of

setting in which a child is served that will result in the failure to provide a child with a disability a free appropriate public education according to the unique needs of the child as described in the child's IEP.

(ii)Assurance.--If the State does not have policies and procedures to ensure compliance with clause (i), the State shall provide the Secretary an assurance that the State will revise the funding mechanism as soon as feasible to ensure that such mechanism does not result in such placements.

1.9.2 Least Restrict Environment Review Committee shall consist of site school psychologist, site administrator overseeing SPED program, district program specialist recommending placement, district program specialist overseeing requested program and potential case manager. In the event a site disagrees with district placement recommendation (1.6.4) due to safety concerns outlined in 1.6.2 (a)(b) in the interest of adhering to LRE as referenced in 1.9.1, the LRE committee will review and make a decision.

1.9.2a Decision will reference reasons as to why the placement is not appropriate and present clear conditions in which would warrant future placement considerations.

1.9.2b Conditions will be measurable and presented to the current IEP so that IEP can support conditions with additional measurable and relevant goals and objectives if necessary.

1.10.0 Compensation Formula Per Caseload Overage

1.10.1 Definitions:

Overage- # of students over recommended district cap per program

Cap- # of students EGEA and district agree to assign each SPED program

IEP Management Time- agreed upon standard reflecting average (%) time spent by a special education teacher on managing IEPs as stated in section 1.4.5.

Salary- current placement on salary schedule

1.10.2 Formula

# of overage x salary x multiplier = compensation pay

# of cap

Multiplier- we recognized that not all responsibilities of SPED teachers pertain to IEPs however, as the caseload increases, the workload potential also increases exponentially. Therefore a multiplier is used to balance out compensation appropriately

If overage is .01 < overage < .25 multiplier would be .25

.26 < overage < .50 multiplier would be .5

.51 < overage < .75 multiplier would be .75

.76 < overage < 1.00 multiplier would be 1.0

EXAMPLE- if Education Specialist on Step 10 Class E, ($66,187 gross annual income)

Cap is 20 and they have 26 on their caseload:

6 (overage)/ 20 (cap) = .3

.3 x multiplier (.5) = .15

FTE would change from 1.0 FTE to a 1.15 FTE

1.15 x $66,187 (teachers current salary) = $76,115.05 gross annual income

APPENDIX A :EGEA 2016-2017 Contract

APPENDIX B: Tentative Agreement 2016-2017 dated May 20th, 2016

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX D