Greenwood Teachers Take on Added Duties

By Lyn Jerde

Revenue controls are creating a new dilemma for some teachers who are being asked to – or being required to – take on administrative responsibilities in financially strapped school districts that can no longer afford to hire or keep all their administrators.

“The severe financial problems caused by school district revenue controls are causing some school districts to leave administrative positions vacant,” said Mike McNett, WEAC’s director of collective bargaining. “Sometimes, those districts are trying to shift duties to teachers.”

In some cases, he said, these issues are handled appropriately through the collective bargaining process. Some districts have negotiated with the local teachers union to create “lead teachers” or “teacher in charge” positions, said Debra Schwoch-Swoboda, WEAC’s collective bargaining specialist. In these districts, which are usually small, teachers are appointed to handle some duties in an administrator’s absence, because one principal may be assigned to more than one building, or because the superintendent does double duty as a principal.

In other cases, districts are “acting unilaterally and inappropriately,” McNett said.

In the Greenwood Community School District in northwest Wisconsin, the decision to create a “lead teacher” program was made by the school district on the basis of economics, outside of the collective bargaining process with the Greenwood Education Association, Schwoch-Swoboda said.

“These ‘teacher in charge’ positions should be negotiated, and should be part of the collective bargaining agreement,” Schwoch-Swoboda said.

David Schaller, president of the Greenwood Education Association, said the teachers are now negotiating their 2001-2003 contract, and the job description and compensation for the lead teachers will be part of the contract negotiations. The district, which has a “good working relationship” with the union, has said it will pay lead teachers an extra $1,200 a year, said chief negotiator John Binder.

“It’s going to be tied to the contract, but the (2001-2003) contract is not in place yet,” Binder said. In the meantime, the five lead teachers at the elementary school are serving as volunteers, with hopes of getting back pay once a contract is reached, Binder said.
That is the type of situation, however, that concerns McNett and Schwoch-Swoboda.

“Without these terms written into the contract, nothing is guaranteed,” McNett said.

The Greenwood district currently is operating with no principals in either of its two buildings. When a principal retired last year, the board chose not to fill the position due to financial concerns, Schaller said.

In the middle-high school building (grades 6-12), where Schaller teaches mathematics, there is a “special assistant to the superintendent,” a retired principal with a limited-term contract, who handles administrative duties when the superintendent is not available.

In the elementary (K-5) building, a five-teacher committee handles duties such as coordinating school assemblies, composing letters to parents, and organizing field trips.

Jerry Hamm, who teaches 5th grade in Greenwood, is one of five elementary teachers who have formed the committee to handle small day-to-day duties normally performed by principals. The committee does not handle any student discipline, nor does it play any role in evaluating teacher performances. The superintendent retains those functions.

Hamm said the fact that the program was implemented outside of negotiations “is a bargaining issue,” but he said the teachers involved do not perceive it as a problem.

Hamm said the board and administration met with all Greenwood teachers three times last year to discuss the budget shortfall, and the proposal to have teachers handle some “minor” duties of principals was raised in at least two of the meetings.

Teachers were receptive to the idea, he said, and the five applicants for the five committee posts represented a cross-section of grade levels in the buildings.

Hamm said he sees this change as long-term, largely because the district’s financial problems are not expected to end any time soon.

Last spring, district voters narrowly defeated a proposal that would have raised Greenwood’s revenue caps and infused the district with about $375,000 a year, for as long as the school board deemed the extra revenue necessary.

As a result, Superintendent Michael Beighley has reported a projected deficit of more than $205,000 for this year. Binder said the district lost seven professional administrative and teaching positions. Beighley said he doesn’t foresee the crunch abating, unless the district has a sudden, unexpected influx of new enrollment or new money.

McNett cautioned that teachers need to be wary about falling into a trap of accepting extra duties without negotiating compensation and other issues. He also cautioned against allowing a district to underpay for such duties, or include inappropriate supervisory responsibilities.

“Teachers are nice people by nature. They see a problem, and they want to help. That’s understandable. But they need to have a broader view of this issue,” he said.

In fact, what is happening, he said, is that state officials and school districts are simply taking advantage of teachers.

“The solution to this problem is not for teachers to continue to take on extra duties,” he said. “The solution is to work to repeal school district revenue controls, develop a fair and equitable system of financing Wisconsin schools, and pay fair salaries to our educators. In the meantime, it is important that we all carefully protect our collective bargaining rights.”

Some “lead teacher” arrangements are carefully negotiated and planned and can be effective, Schwoch-Swoboda said. But in other cases – especially if they are imposed on teachers simply as a cost-saving measure – they can cause problems.

Schwoch-Swoboda cautioned all schools with similar programs that state law and the Department of Public Instruction Administrative Code spell out which job functions must be performed only by administrators – including job evaluations for teachers.

However, she said, it is possible that administrators may ask lead teachers to “contribute” information that the administrator could use in evaluating the teacher. That boundary must be carefully guarded, she said.

In Greenwood, Hamm believes the new system is working well.
Hamm said the committee work has not cut into his time with his students. It entails a before-school meeting once a week, plus some of the participating teachers’ classroom preparation time.

The system also has fostered a sense of collegiality among teachers, Hamm said.

“I think the committee is very approachable,” he said. “Our superintendent is approachable, too, but sometimes talking to a colleague makes it easier.”

How long it stays in place might depend on the outcome of Greenwood’s next referendum on raising the revenue caps. That referendum is planned for April.

Hamm said more and more small school districts will likely be asking teachers to assume some day-to-day duties traditionally assigned to principals, if costs keep rising and funding does not.
“I think it’s better if we have a building principal,” he said. “But with the budget the way it is, I’m sure other districts will soon be doing what we’re doing.”

McNett urged teachers in those districts to be very cautious about protecting their collective bargaining rights.

“If we start giving up our protections, it will not only hurt us, it will hurt all those that follow us in the future,” he said. “Ultimately, it will hurt children because it will depreciate the value and importance of teaching as a profession.”

Posted October 9, 2001