APS administration official says reversing 6th period would cost district more than $4 million

An administrative official at the Aurora Public Schools District says following an arbiter's ruling to overturn an added 6th period for high school teachers could cost the district upwards of $4 million and up to 90 positions.



More from today's Sentinel:

AURORA | Administrative sources from Aurora Public Schools say reversing the district’s decision to add an extra class to high school teachers’ schedules would mean cutting about $4.4 million in salaries, or up to 90 jobs.

The assertion from unnnamed district administrators comes less than a week before the APS Board of Education is scheduled to vote on a nonbinding ruling issued by an administrative law judge earlier last month. The ruling was part of an outside arbitration process sought by the Aurora Education Association earlier this year; the decision stated that a measure finalized by the APS Board of Education to add a sixth period to high school teachers’ schedules during the 2010-11 school year broke the terms of their contracts.

But according to documents obtained by The Aurora Sentinel and distributed to district officials administrators and AEA officials, APS administrators maintain the move was within their contract rights. Specifically, the district cites the contract guideline that teachers can’t have more than five classes per day.

According to the documents, “no teacher is exceeding five classes per day, averaged over a quarter. Most high school teachers are teaching only three classes per day.”

What’s more, administrative sources say a move to reverse the decision would result in a lost of up to 90 positions, a loss that would equal up to $4.4 million in wages.

Such arguments could steer recommendations to the board to vote to reject the ruling during their regularly scheduled meeting on Nov. 9.

AEA President Brenna Isaacs says the district’s argument about the five-class-per-day limit comes down to semantics. Before the district shifted to a bell schedule in 2007, Isaacs said, the definition of a single class period was different.

“A block schedule is three classes (a day); each class is 100 minutes,” Isaacs said. “What do you consider a class to be; is a class 100 minutes or is a class 50 minutes? If you were to define a class as 50 minutes you are teaching six classes. I think it does question what are you really defining as a class.”

Isaacs said that in the past, high school teachers have received extra pay for an added sixth period. Specifically, Isaacs said teachers received 20 percent of their salaried payment as payment for the added work load.

Isaacs added that the union was never given the opportunity to consider data about the risk of lost jobs for teachers before the district moved to add the class.

“We’ve not had a chance to sit down and actually look at any information,” Isaacs said. “My reaction to that would be that they have asked teachers to pick up additional work this year and felt they could do that without offering compensation. This is not an issue that the Association created.”

For both sides, the issue comes down to the meaning of the teachers’ contract with APS. Administrative sources say following the arbiter’s ruling would change the master agreement “without approveal or without negotiations.”

The union, meanwhile, voices a similar argument against the district.

“We have a collective bargaining agreement and we believe that that is an important and significant document,” Isaacs said, calling the district’s move a “unilateral decision” and warning against the future meaning of such a move. “They could make those kinds of decision about other parts of the contract.”