Recently, this column contained an article regarding the seventh period day arbitration. As you may recall, the article outlined the procedural background regarding implementing seven periods in the school district, namely that the Association had been successful in 2004 in arguing that a seventh period could not be implemented utilizing minutes from the existing six periods. This school year, Fremont Middle School implemented a seventh period not by taking minutes from the existing six periods but by reducing passing periods and taking time from the morning and afternoon unassigned times. An arbitration was held in September 2007 to determine whether the school district violated the Negotiated Agreement when it implemented a seventh period utilizing unassigned time and whether the district violated the Negotiated Agreement when it implemented a seventh period utilizing minutes from the existing six periods similar to the prior decision.
The decision from the arbitration has finally arrived and regrettably Arbitrator Perea determined that nothing in the Negotiated Agreement prevents the school district from implementing a seventh period utilizing unassigned time, i.e. passing periods, and morning and afternoon time. Essentially, Arbitrator Perea determined that this is the school district’s time and they can decide to make a seventh period.
A courageous teacher from Fremont testified at the arbitration about the negative impact the seventh period schedule had on teachers and students. Arbitrator Perea stated as follows:
“Whether rearranging or reducing the time for such activities within the workday constitutes sound educational policy is a complex question beyond the Arbitrator’s jurisdiction and qualifications. The Arbitrator recognizes, however, the reality that by creating a mandatory seventh period there is an increase in teacher workload due to the necessity to prepare additional lesson plans, teach additional subject matters, create and grade additional tests, correct additional homework assignments, monitor student progress and issue additional grades.”
It is up to teachers to show those who decide what “constitutes sound educational policy” that mandating a seventh period from unassigned time is NOT sound educational policy. For example, in order to create the seventh period at Fremont, the students had 3-minute passing periods, the seventh period was shorter than other periods, and scheduling parent-teacher conferences was an issue.
It is important to understand the implications of this recent decision. While the school district can implement a seventh period without a waiver, it must do so within certain parameters. The school district can make up the seventh period from unassigned time; however, it CANNOT take the time from the existing six periods. Essentially if classes at this time are 54 minutes in duration, they must continue to be 54 minutes in duration. The school district can only take minutes from the morning, afternoon, and passing periods to make the seventh period. This is not easy to accomplish.
When teachers at Fremont became aware that the principal was going to pursue a seventh period with the above limitations, TAC got very involved and proposed their own schedule. While the TAC’s schedule took minutes from the existing six periods and would have required a contract waiver, it was an equitable schedule that could have passed the requirements of a contract waiver because the teachers themselves created it.
Without a doubt, this decision will impact schedules for the upcoming school year. Take note of whether your school will be implementing a seventh period and how the principal will implement that seventh period. Because of this decision, teachers should be proactive in creating and suggesting their own schedule to principals. Good principals will not attempt to shove an impossible schedule down teachers’ throats because they can when they know it is NOT sound educational policy.