Alligators and Everything Else: a Perspective on the Schoolyard (Collective Bargaining)

To hear some school administrators tell it, there is no more dangerous place on earth than the yard of their local school. It’s surprising that teachers are not given a suit of armor to wear – under the bright orange vest, mind you – while on duty. Granted, every administrator will also explain that his/her school is “unique” and requires“special consideration” to deal with its multitude of issues, especially supervision time. Creating a supervision schedule that meets the needs  of  a  particular  school,  no  matter  how unique, is not only necessary but possible. Every  public  school  board  in  Ontario  has agreed  to  collective  agreement  language  that limits  teachers’  supervision  time.  In  addition, by  agreeing to  this  language the  boards  have assumed a shared responsibility for implement- ing these supervision limits. Now is the   time to  look  for solutions not excuses. The process used to find solutions often determines the outcome. When administrators work cooperatively with staff – the norm throughout the province – two things happen:

1. Supervision schedules are created that meet the collective agreement requirements and provide for student safety at no extra cost.
2. An atmosphere of mutual respect is created that improves every aspect of the learning environment.

On the other hand, when administrators use an autocratic decision-making model there are often two quite different outcomes:

1. The disputed supervision schedule becomes part of the mediation/grievance/arbitration process.
2. The animosity created eventually poisons relationships and results in an “us versus them” mentality that does nothing to improve the learning environment.

  A portrait of the cooperative  approach The days of the school administrator having the final say on the supervision issue are over: collective agreements clearly state that joint decision- making has to take place. Teachers have an equal voice on the school supervision committee and must be given equal opportunity to  have input into the process and the final product. A  cooperative  approach  should  include  the following:

• Meeting dates that allow everyone to be involved while respecting other aspects of their lives
• Provision of all information required
• Ground rules that acknowledge every member of the committee has an equal voice
• A willingness to listen to the ideas of others and the courage to attempt creative solutions.

With  this  type  of  approach  the  parties can work towards the common goal of meeting the collective agreement requirements while maintaining student safety.   What next? As a result of the 2004 – 2008 round of collective bargaining all locals have collective agreement language that limits teachers’ supervision time. In all but one local, the upper limit for supervision for the 2006 – 2007 school year is 100 minutes per week (or per five instructional days). In addition, all but one collective agreement provides that boards must “make every reason- able effort” to ensure that no teacher performs more than 80 minutes of supervision per week (or per five instructional days). To  achieve the  80-minute  limit, committees may need to look at new ways of performing supervision. The following suggestions may help:

• Use teams and rotating schedules so that  less desirable duties are shared
• Use walkie-talkies during yard supervision to improve communication
• Combine as many classes as possible for lunch supervision
• Review bus loading and unloading procedures to minimize waiting time at the end of the day and between multiple bus runs
• Use yards efficiently and possibly close down some sections
• Institute a peer-helper or conflict manager program using older students
• Modify bell times to reduce length of time before school
• Reallocate existing funds to hire lunchroom assistants to supervise during lunch/nutrition breaks
• Maximize the use of non-teaching adults to provide supervision.

This list of suggestions is by no means exhaustive. Each school will deter mine what can work for it.   HELP! We’re stuck Teachers in a school may, after much deliberation, determine that they have no further ways to reduce supervision  time. That may very well be true; however, this does not mean that supervision time can’t be reduced but only that those teachers have run out of workable ideas. Teachers who find themselves in this situation are responsible for refer- ring the matter to their local ETFO office. Teachers do not have the author- ity to agree to working conditions that are different from those outlined in the collective agreement. This is acknowledged in the collective agreement language regarding board-union supervision committees. The greater knowledge and experience of board–union committee members may help them find alternative solutions to supervision issues. If the committee can’t find a resolution, then supervision schedules still not meeting the requirements of  the  collective agreement may be forwarded to the newly-formed Provincial Stability Commission. Established as part of the provincial framework, the Stability Commission will serve as a problem-solving body to help deal with supervision issues. The process for resolving supervision time issues is fair and recognizes a new era in board-union relationships, an era of equality and shared problem-solving.   A better future The working conditions, specifically supervision, that were bargained in the last round of negotiations are only real if they are implemented. Everyone involved in public elementary education wants to see the best possible learning environment for students. That can only happen when all of the stakeholders work cooperatively. As teachers, we must make sure that we are doing our part.