Sups symposium lcff bargaining 2014

Discussion Focus

Review of LCFF

CSR Funding and CBA Agreements

Scope of Representation and Management Prerogative

Practical Application

Potential LCAP Implications

Agenda

State General Fund Revenues(Billions of Dollars)

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

2016-17

2017-18

2018-19

2019-20

$75.0

$85.0

$95.0

$105.0

$115.0

$125.0

$93.2

$95.3

$79.4

$84.5

$89.9

$82.9

$96.0 $97.8

$105.3

$111.4

$115.8

$120.8

99.8101.8

107.6

113.8

119

124.2125.8

128.9

Jan. Budget

Nov. LAO

www.capitoladvisors.org 3

Prop 98 Changes Over Time

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 $45.0

$55.0

$65.0

$75.0

$55.0 $56.6

$49.2

$51.7

$49.7

$47.2

$58.3 $56.8

$61.6

$64.5

$67.0

$69.6

2013-14 Budget Act 2014-15 Jan. Budget Nov. LAO


LCFF Entitlement Target

• Entitlement Target = Base Grant + GSAs + Supplemental Grant + Concentration Grant + Add-ons

• Base Grant per ADA (with annual COLA)K-3 = $7,012 7-8 = $7,329

4-6 = $7,117 9-12 = $8,492

• GSAs – 10.4% ($729) for K-3 and 2.6% ($221) for 9-12


LCFF Entitlement Target

• Supplemental Grant – additional 20% of Base Grant + GSAs for each EL, low income and foster pupil (by enrollment)

• Concentration Grant – additional 50% of Base Grant + GSAs for each student eligible for supplemental grant above 55% concentration threshold

• Add-ons – Home-to-School Transportation and Targeted Instructional Improvement Grant (TIIG) - No COLA


LCFF for 2013-14

Base Grant

Supplemental Grant

Concentration Grant

K-3 GSA

9-12 GSA

Trans. Add-on

Entitlement Target TIIG Add-on Hold Harmless

2012-13Revenue

Limit

2012-13“Included”

Categoricals

2012-13 Trans.2012-13 TIIG

11.78% of gap

2013-14 LCFF Funding------------------------


LCFF for 2014-15

Base Grant(with COLA)

Supplemental Grant

Concentration Grant

K-3 GSA

9-12 GSA

Trans. Add-on

New Entitlement TargetTIIG Add-on

2013-14LCFF Funding

(adjusted for ADA)

28% of new gap

2014-15 LCFF Funding

Target in 2013-14


Economic Recovery Target

• Goal is to restore all districts to at least 2007-08 funding levels by leveling up LCFF “losers”

• ERT = undeficited revenue limit in 2012-13 + COLA (1.94%) for 2013-14 thru 2020-21 + categorical funding in 2012-13 w/o 20% flex reductions or “fair share” reductions

• A district will transition toward the greater of its LCFF Entitlement Target or ERT

• Most districts will have LCFF ET > ERT

Flexibility vs. Targeting

• It’s the Local Control Funding Formula!• But, it also targets funding to specific

student characteristics and needs• Both flexibility and resource “equity” are

core tenets of the LCFF and both are supported by research and practice

• State Board tasked with maintaining the right balance

“Proportionality” Tied to Closing “Funding Gap”

• The base year for upcoming LCAPs is 2013-14, not 2012-13

• Gap funding percentage will drive the proportionality percentage

• The estimated closure of the “gap” for 2014-15 is NOT 11.8% (LCFF increase for 2013-14)

• The closure of the gap for 2014-15 will be known in the final budget and may be closer to 28%

• Creates significant challenges for the LCAP development process outlined in the SBE regulations


SBE Regulations: Step-by-Step

Seven steps:1. Determine total revenue from supplemental and

concentration grants at full LCFF funding 2. Determine prior year expenditures of additional

(beyond core?) support for EL, low-income and foster youth (for 2013-14 must be at least equal to 2012-13 EIA funding)

3. Calculate the gap between prior year spending and target revenue at full implementation (Step 1 minus Step 2)


SBE Regulations: Step-by-Step

4. Estimate the increase in supplemental and concentration grant funding for the LCAP year (multiply the gap figure in Step 3 by the DOF calculated LCFF gap reduction percentage - 28% for 2014-15 based on January Proposal)

5. Calculate total supplemental and concentration grant funds for LCAP year - add LCAP year increase (Step 4) to the prior year expenditure (Step 3)

6. Calculate base funding in the LCAP year (total 2014-15 LCFF funding minus Step 5)

7. Calculate minimum proportionality percentage by dividing LCAP year supplemental/concentration grant funds (Step 5) by LCAP year base grant funds (Step 6)


District-wide Use of Funds

• Districts eligible for concentration grant funds (over 55% threshold) may demonstrate increased or improved services by using funds on districtwide basis, but must:– Identify in the LCAP services provided on a district-

wide basis– Describe how those services are directed toward

meeting LCAP goals for unduplicated pupils• Districts under 55% threshold may still use funds on

a district-wide basis, but in addition to above must:– Describe how district-wide services are the “most

effective” use of these funds to meet LCAP goals for unduplicated pupils


School-wide Use of Funds

• Districts may expend funds on a school-wide basis if unduplicated pupils exceed 40% of a school’s total enrollment, but must:– Identify in the LCAP those services being provided on a school-

wide basis– Describe how those services are directed toward meeting LCAP

goals for unduplicated pupils

• For schools under 40% threshold funds may still be used on a school-wide basis, but in addition to above must:– Describe how school-wide services are the “most effective” use

of these funds to meet LCAP goals for unduplicated pupils


The New Local Control Accountability Program (LCAP)

• State Priorities• SBE Template• Local Plan – Goals, Actions, Expenditures• Community Engagement and Public

Hearings• Align Plan and Budget• Oversight, Technical Assistance,

Intervention

Accountability – State Priorities

1) Compliance with Williams criteria – instructional materials, teacher assignments and credentials, facilities

2) Implementation of SBE adopted academic content standards, including programs and services for ELs to access the Common Core and ELD standards

3) Parental involvement

4) Pupil Achievement – statewide assessments, API, completion of A-G requirements, CTE sequences and AP courses, EL progress toward proficiency, college preparation (Early Assessment Program)

Accountability – State Priorities (cont..)

5) Pupil engagement – attendance, dropout and graduation rates

6) School climate – suspension and expulsion rates, etc.

7) Access, including for subgroups and special needs, to a broad course of study in specified subject areas

8) Pupil outcomes in those specified subject areas

Local Control and Accountability Plans

By July 1, 2014 each LEA must adopt (over 2 public hearings) a local control and accountability plan (LCAP) that describes:• Annual goals, for all students and for each

LCFF subgroup, for each of the specified state priorities and for any additional identified local priorities

• The specific actions the LEA will take to achieve those goals

Community Engagement

Prior to adopting LCAP and budget you must:• Present LCAP to parent advisory committee

– May use existing committee– Must include parents of EL, LI or FY– To provide advice to board and district,

• Present LCAP to EL parent advisory committee– If at least 15% ELs and enrolls 50 or more ELs

Community Engagement (cont.)

• Notify members of public of opportunity to submit written comments on draft LCAP

• Public hearing to comment on draft LCAP• Public hearing to adopt LCAP and budget• It’s not too early to get started• The “equity” groups are watching …

Budget Aligned to LCAP

• For 2014-15, and each subsequent year, the LCAP must be adopted before the LEA adopts its budget

• The county superintendent, or SPI, shall disapprove a budget that does not include the expenditures necessary to implement the LCAP

• A listing and description of expenditures (CSAM) for that fiscal year that implement the specific actions identified in the LCAP

• A listing and description of expenditures that will serve students that generate supplemental and concentration grants

LCFF/LCAP – New Opportunities

• Local program choices less driven by State funding decisions

• Funding/programs aligned to local goals• Business office/fiscal services and

curriculum/instruction folks need to work together

• Get community buy-in

Class Size Reduction

• Ratio equal to 24:1 by full implementation • Average per school site • Must make “progress toward maintaining average

class enrollment”• There is a calculation for “progress” • Decrease each year in proportion to amount funded

to close “gap”• Exempt if collectively bargained a different ratio or

currently at 24:1 (or lower) • Audit Guide requirement

Class Size ReductionCalculating School Site Averages

• Department of Finance (DOF) staff indicates that an acceptable methodology is the current Grades 4-8 class size average calculation.

• This calculation is a simple average calculated pursuant to Education Code Section 41376(b)

• The number of pupils in Grades TK-3 enrolled at the school site, divided by the number of full-time equivalent classroom teachers for Grades TK-3 at the school site

• The resulting quotient is the district's Grades TK-3 school site average

CSR Bargaining Language Options• The parties acknowledge that as a condition of receiving the additional funding grant for K-3 Class

size reduction under the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) the District is required to make progress toward maintaining an average class enrollment of not more than 24 pupils for each school site in kindergarten and grades 1 to 3 upon full implementation of the LCFF, as such progress is defined in Education Code section 42238.02.

• The parties intend for the District to be in compliance with this law as interpreted by subsequent guidelines and regulations of the California Department of Education (CDE) upon full implementation of the LCFF (currently 2020) as set forth in Education Code section 42238.02(d)(3)(D).

• Under this alternative, the District shall make annual progress at each school site toward the 24:1 goal by full implementation of the LCFF, but the amount of progress at each school site shall be flexible and shall not be tied to the formula set forth in Education Code section 42238.02(d)(3)(B)(i)-(v).

• For the 2013-2014 school year, as long as state funding is provided, it is the District's intent to comply with the state's K-3 class size limitations. To that end, parties agree that the Transitional Kinder -3 class size average at each site will not exceed 10% more than the level prescribed by state funding requirements while maintaining the state’s K -3 class size limitation average district-wide.

Educational EmploymentRelations Act

(Cal. Gov. Code § 3540 et seq.)

So, What’s Negotiable?

• Mandatory Subjects of Bargaining

• Permissive Subjects of Bargaining

The Bargaining Process

The Impact of Collective Bargaining

• It is not an abstract legal practice• It affects everyone with an interest in

educating students• It has far reaching influence on the entire

education system• Terms within a collective bargaining

agreement can control the management of a school district

Collective Bargaining as Generally Perceived

• A union negotiating with management for the best possible salary and benefits package for its member employees

Collective Bargaining in Reality• Salaries and benefits• Teacher evaluation• Class size• Sick leave, work rules, retirement, grievance

procedures• Number of hours and minutes worked• The make-up of curriculum planning teams and

site based councils• Agreement forms for the use of technology• The district calendar

The Impact on School Boards

• Collective bargaining in education differs radically from all private sector and virtually all other public sector bargaining because of one fact: school boards are elected

• In the private sector, the union membership has no legal mechanism to threaten management with replacement

The Impact on Administration

• Their ability to manage is largely determined by the terms of the collective bargaining agreement

• Local unions can use pressure tactics and negative media coverage to render an administrator ineffective

• Unions can file an endless number of unfair labor practice complaints against administrators

• Bottom line: too much labor unrest, too many complaints, and a school board looks for another administrator

The Impact on Teachers

• Can portray teachers in an unprofessional light

• Collective bargaining agreements often create an inflexible system limiting teachers in their freedom to respond to a broad variety of circumstances

• Unions need uniformity to flourish—often limiting individual recognition for a job well done

The Impact on Students and Parents

• Collective bargaining is employee oriented• The purpose of a union: protect its

members• Unions do not exist to protect the best

interests of the students or the district• The end result: valuable resources often

don’t make it to the classroom

Local Control Accountability Plan

“The Proportionality Clause”

• Under the LCFF, districts will have to use supplemental and concentration funds to:

• “Increase or improve services for English Learner/Low Income pupils in proportion to the increase in funds apportioned on the basis of the number and concentration of unduplicated pupils”

• The exact meaning and regulatory effect of this proportionality clause is currently unknown. On or before January 31, 2014, the State Board of Education (SBE) is required to promulgate regulations regarding how this clause will be operationalized.” (“An Overview of the Local Control Funding Formula,” Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), Mac Taylor, Legislative Analyst, July 29, 2013)

Are Districts obligated to negotiate over the LCFF implementation decisions

contained in the LCAP?

Are Districts Obligated . . . ?

No. LEAs are not statutorily obligated to negotiate LCAP implementation decisions. While LEAs have an obligation to “consult,” they do not have an obligation to “meet and negotiate” implementation decisions. “Establishing educational policies, goals and objectives,” “determining curriculum,” and “establishing budgetary priorities and allocations” are all fundamental management prerogatives not within the mandatory scope of bargaining. In some cases, a local CBA will enumerate these management prerogatives in a “Management Rights” clause.

Source: “Do We Have to Bargain Over Our Local Control Accountability Plan and Our Plan to Implement Common Core Standards?, The Fiscal Report, School Services of California, Suzanne Speck and Todd A. Goluba, September 20, 2013

Effects Bargaining and the LCAP

• Because LCAP decisions will likely have a foreseeable impact on negotiable “terms and conditions of employment” for bargaining unit members, a school district or COE is required to negotiate the “effects” or “impacts” of these decisions on negotiable subjects, including for example, hours of employment, compensation for professional development, collaboration time for teachers to reflect on student data and work or additional compensation for individuals working with targeted students. (Speck and Goluba)

What If an LEA Receives a Demand to Bargain Before Adoption of the LCAP?• Remember that a district’s obligation, after meeting the consultation

requirement and making its decisions, is to meet and negotiate the impact of decisions not to negotiate hypothetically how a particular decision could impact employee’s working conditions.

• If a district receives such a demand, remind the bargaining representatives of your obligations, invite them to consult, and use the demand as an invitation to jointly study the LCFF and what the future holds for you locally under the new funding model.

• Once the LCAP is sufficiently complete and its possible effects ascertainable, then ask the bargaining unit to identify in writing the specific areas of concern in which they believe “effects bargaining” may be necessary and then commence the bargaining process. (Speck and Goluba)

The Careful Approach on LCAP, Scope and Effects

1. Provide reasonable notice to your exclusive representatives on your LCAP plans and processes. “Consult” with local bargaining unit if required by SB 97 or if choose to do so anyway.

2. When you have a draft plan based upon your “consult” process, send a copy to the presidents of your exclusive representatives. Update your notice as you proceed.

3. If you receive a demand to bargain, ask your unions to identify the matters within scope that they propose to bargain. [Classified unions will have issues with your LCAP decisions, as well as teachers].

Careful Approach . . . continued

4. Go to the table and listen. PERB has held that when you are presented with a non-negotiable proposal that you must state your objections, but that’s not a good place to start. (San Mateo County Community College District (1993) PERB Decision No. 1030.)

5. After engaging and inquiring over why and what, identify the interests of the District. Use the input from the required consultation groups to identify those interests. “Articulate” your objections, if any. Share information broadly, financial, legal, LCAP drafts, the input, the output. Engage.

Consultation in a Bargaining Culture

• “Consult” undefined in LCAP law.

• Under the EERA (Gov. Code, § 3543.2(a)) relating to curriculum “Consultation” (also known as “meet and confer”) involves the “free exchange of information, opinions, informal proposals and recommendations according to orderly procedures in a conscientious effort to incorporate such recommendations into the resulting policy or plan.”

“I will begin to care about the quality of children’s education in this country when they start paying dues.”

--Al Shanker (Former president of the American Federation of Teachers)

“We lost our way when we became more interested in the employment of adults than in the education of children”

--John Stanford (Former Seattle Superintendent)

Necessary Steps to Prepare for Collective Bargaining

• Know what you want going in to the process . . . Study your contract

• Pick your bargaining team carefully . . . You need your most respected leaders at the table

• Educate all board members on their role in collective bargaining

• Make certain your budget figures are accurate• Identify the issues to be discussed at each

session in advance

Helpful Tips Prior to and During Negotiations

• Work with your union leaders to make certain that you are given a reasonable bargaining team

• Work diligently to bargain locally—only district employees at the table

• Build a relationship with the members of the bargaining team outside of the bargaining room

• Establish the concept of total compensation early

• Keep your management team abreast of all happenings

Pitfalls to Avoid

• Never give language in lieu of money

• Be careful with formulas—there are no silver bullets

• Don’t paint yourself into a corner by saying “No” too quickly or too often

If No Agreement

• Declaration of Impasse– If no settlement is reached, one or both

parties may declare impasse– If a party disputes the existence of impasse,

PERB will investigate and determine whether impasse exists within five days

(Cal. Gov. Code § 3548; 8 C.C.R. §§ 32380(c), 32793(e).)

Fact-finding Process

• Mediation (five days)

– If PERB determines that impasse exists, it will appoint a mediator within five working days of the declaration of impasse

(Cal. Gov. Code § 3548.)


• Referral to Fact-finding (15 days)– If the mediator cannot resolve the controversy

within 15 days after appointment, he/she may declare that fact-finding is appropriate to resolve the dispute

– There is no clear time limit for completion of mediation, so mediation could extend this timeline beyond 15 days

(Cal. Gov. Code § 3548.1(a).)


• Selection of Fact-finding Panel (five days)– Within five days after receipt of the written

request for fact-finding, each party shall select a person to serve as its member of the fact-finding panel

(Cal. Gov. Code § 3548.1(a).)


• Selection of Chair (five days)– Within five days after selection of the panel

members, the board shall select a chairperson of the fact-finding panel

(Cal. Gov. Code § 3548.1(a).)


• Replace Panel-Selected Chair (five days)– Within five days after the board selects a

chairperson, the parties may agree on a person to serve as chairperson in lieu of the person selected by the panel

(Cal. Gov. Code § 3548.1(a).)


• Investigation and Hearing (ten days)– Within ten days of its appointment, the fact-

finding panel shall meet with the parties, make inquiries and investigations, holds hearings, and take any other steps it deems appropriate

(Cal. Gov. Code § 3548.2(a).)


• Findings of Fact and Recommendations (30 days)– If the dispute is not settled in 30 days, or

longer if agreed to by parties, the panel shall make findings of fact and recommend terms of settlement

• Recommendations are only advisory• Parties’ agreement to extend the fact-finding

process will extend this timeline

(Cal. Gov. Code § 3548.3(a).)


• Publicize Findings of Fact (ten days)– Within ten days of receipt of the panel’s

findings of fact, the district must publicize the findings

– Parties must consider the report in good faith and attempt to use it as a basis for settlement

– Mediator may conduct post-fact-finding mediation(Cal. Gov. Code § 3548.3(a); § 3548.5; Modesto City Schools (1983) PERB Dec. No. 291.)


• Completion of Impasse – The district may implement its last, best, and

final offer on genuine post-fact-finding impasse

• The district cannot implement components that would constitute a unilateral limitation on a party’s right to bargain

(Covina Valley Unif. Sch. Dist. (1993) PERB Dec. No. 968; Rowland Unif. Sch. Dist. (1994) PERB Dec. No. 1053.)


• Parties must complete the statutory impasse procedures, even if they agree to alternative forms of dispute resolution before or during impasse

• Either party may be required to negotiate in good faith when impasse is broken– A break in impasse occurs when a party offers

concessions sufficient to revive the duty to bargain(Temple City Unif. Sch. Dist. (1990) PERB Dec. No. 841; Redwoods Comm. Coll. Dist. (1996) PERB Dec. No. 1141; PERB v. Modesto City Schools (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 881, 899.)

Sups symposium lcff bargaining 2014

Education

Transcript of Sups symposium lcff bargaining 2014