How big a deal are the recent teacher involuntary transfers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a big deal. It's not like every school is the same commute or administration. It can impact a family, before care, after care, and so many other things. These placements should be determined in the spring, not one month before returning to work. If MCPS doesn't want to lose more teachers, they should be considerate. Ask for volunteers. Allow for these teachers to resign without prejudice so they can go to another county (if desired). Follow the staffing guidelines set forth each year. Anyone saying it's not a big deal have no idea how this can become a huge issue for teachers.

There are schools where projected enrollments can differ a lot from actual enrollment. The county needs the flexibility to be able to move teachers around. All this bellyaching just makes it seem like teachers and the teacher's union don't care about kids. If a teacher doesn't like the policy they are welcome to leave.

The policy, as agreed to in the collective bargaining agreement, seems to be that notice has to be given no later than Feb 28.

I'm not sure why everyone keeps referencing the February 28th date. That date refers to the projected enrollments principals are given at that time. Principals then notify teachers who will be need to be transferred. There is a job fair so that those teachers have a chance to find another position. If they do not secure a position, then they are placed at a school. The February 28th date is given so that the whole process can be followed as this will be the majority of the involuntary transfers. However, enrollments change and positions at schools can be lost after this date. I'm not sure what people think a teacher can do if his/her position is lost? The schools can't just keep the teacher on with no classroom, and the school can't just have lower numbers in their classes because of projected enrollments are higher than their actual enrollments. It's a big inconvenience when it happens, but it is what it is. Teachers know this can happen. Yes, it makes the job less attractive. Yes, we wish it could be done differently. But it is not a breach of contract.

Right now I only have what was posted in the News7 piece which quoted the February 28 notification date. Does anyone have the wording on the contract that covers the part in bold? You say it isn’t going against the agreed upon contract, but what in the contract allows for the transfers after that date?

Google the MCEA MCPS contract for 2022. The language is intentionally vague. It mentions that MCPS will provide MCEA with a list of involuntary transfers in March. It does not explicitly say that the list in March is the final list. It says that teachers will be given as much notice as possible and be provided with a list of vacancies. And yes, there could be a situation where a teacher is transferred mid year. Very unlikely and would be avoided at all costs, but it would not be a violation of contract.

Article 26, Section B, Paragraph 4
Impacted MCEA bargaining unit members will receive notice of involuntary transfer in writing by the third Friday in March and given the opportunity to search for open positions in MCPS Careers (or its digital equivalent) and can attend a system wide meeting held by the Office of Human Resources and Develop- ment to receive appropriate information.

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/departments/associationrelations/MCEA_Contract.pdf

I am going back and reading again, but I haven’t found anything that confirms the part in bold.

I'm so confused, this has been happening for years. Teachers have been involuntarily transferred throughout the summer and even in the week before school. Were all those transfers a violation of the contract?

Possibly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, MCPS treats teachers like widgets, not like the professionals they are. They can be pulled out of one school and put into another (or 2 others, .5 at one and .5 at another), at will. It SUCKS.

Yes, but it’s “for the kids”.
Teachers are expendable and mcps treats them as such. They always have (at least for the 25 years I’ve been in the county). I saw this happen to teachers my first year, it is one reason that I’ve been at the same school for my entire 25 years.
Parents, remember this the next time DCUM tells you had strong the contract is and how the union runs everything. They don’t. The contract is purposely vague. Teachers have little professional autonomy and increasingly less personal autonomy (see the health insurance issue).

Are they? In 2022 are teachers really that expendable?

I'm curious about how the contract is vague. The language quoted in this thread and by the news source (I'm not a teacher in MCPS) looks fairly specific.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, MCPS treats teachers like widgets, not like the professionals they are. They can be pulled out of one school and put into another (or 2 others, .5 at one and .5 at another), at will. It SUCKS.

Yes, but it’s “for the kids”.
Teachers are expendable and mcps treats them as such. They always have (at least for the 25 years I’ve been in the county). I saw this happen to teachers my first year, it is one reason that I’ve been at the same school for my entire 25 years.
Parents, remember this the next time DCUM tells you had strong the contract is and how the union runs everything. They don’t. The contract is purposely vague. Teachers have little professional autonomy and increasingly less personal autonomy (see the health insurance issue).

Are they? In 2022 are teachers really that expendable?

I'm curious about how the contract is vague. The language quoted in this thread and by the news source (I'm not a teacher in MCPS) looks fairly specific.

I'm not a contract expert, but maybe someone who is can shed some light. Article 11 seems to conflict with Article 26 (which states the dates teachers are to be notified). Article 11 states:

The parties recognize that moving between classrooms and work locations is a necessary part of school-districtoperations. Providing as much notice as possible when a unit member must move is a goal that the district and association share. Thus, any unit member who has to move work locations due to building relocation or as a result of a District mandated reorganization, will be notified within a week of the Principal’s notification. When it is deemed necessary for a unit member to move, unit members will be provided with the opportunity to discuss the move and the reasons for it. Support will be provided to assist unit members with moves. This includes, but is not limited to, activities such as transporting instructional materials, moving furniture, handling of special equipment, and set up. Appropriate moving materials and supplies will be made availableto unit members. Every effort will be made to minimizeinvoluntary classroom reassignments from year to year.

Teachers have definitely been moved after the job fair/involuntary placements have concluded. I can't imagine that if there was a recourse, that the teachers and principals in these situations would have figured it out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, MCPS treats teachers like widgets, not like the professionals they are. They can be pulled out of one school and put into another (or 2 others, .5 at one and .5 at another), at will. It SUCKS.

Yes, but it’s “for the kids”.
Teachers are expendable and mcps treats them as such. They always have (at least for the 25 years I’ve been in the county). I saw this happen to teachers my first year, it is one reason that I’ve been at the same school for my entire 25 years.
Parents, remember this the next time DCUM tells you had strong the contract is and how the union runs everything. They don’t. The contract is purposely vague. Teachers have little professional autonomy and increasingly less personal autonomy (see the health insurance issue).

Are they? In 2022 are teachers really that expendable?

I'm curious about how the contract is vague. The language quoted in this thread and by the news source (I'm not a teacher in MCPS) looks fairly specific.

I'm not a contract expert, but maybe someone who is can shed some light. Article 11 seems to conflict with Article 26 (which states the dates teachers are to be notified). Article 11 states:

The parties recognize that moving between classrooms and work locations is a necessary part of school-districtoperations. Providing as much notice as possible when a unit member must move is a goal that the district and association share. Thus, any unit member who has to move work locations due to building relocation or as a result of a District mandated reorganization, will be notified within a week of the Principal’s notification. When it is deemed necessary for a unit member to move, unit members will be provided with the opportunity to discuss the move and the reasons for it. Support will be provided to assist unit members with moves. This includes, but is not limited to, activities such as transporting instructional materials, moving furniture, handling of special equipment, and set up. Appropriate moving materials and supplies will be made availableto unit members. Every effort will be made to minimizeinvoluntary classroom reassignments from year to year.

Teachers have definitely been moved after the job fair/involuntary placements have concluded. I can't imagine that if there was a recourse, that the teachers and principals in these situations would have figured it out.

This is about physical location such as if a teacher needs to move classrooms. The involuntary transfer has its own section in the contract.

[Anonymous]

Kindergarten enrollment is always challenging and there are many last minute transfers. In higher income schools, the enrollments are off because families enroll in public but then go private. In some areas, many families do not enroll until very close to the school year, or have lots of families moving in over the summer, and their enrollment increases. There is no way to predict this in February/March.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, MCPS treats teachers like widgets, not like the professionals they are. They can be pulled out of one school and put into another (or 2 others, .5 at one and .5 at another), at will. It SUCKS.

Yes, but it’s “for the kids”.
Teachers are expendable and mcps treats them as such. They always have (at least for the 25 years I’ve been in the county). I saw this happen to teachers my first year, it is one reason that I’ve been at the same school for my entire 25 years.
Parents, remember this the next time DCUM tells you had strong the contract is and how the union runs everything. They don’t. The contract is purposely vague. Teachers have little professional autonomy and increasingly less personal autonomy (see the health insurance issue).

Are they? In 2022 are teachers really that expendable?

I'm curious about how the contract is vague. The language quoted in this thread and by the news source (I'm not a teacher in MCPS) looks fairly specific.

I'm not a contract expert, but maybe someone who is can shed some light. Article 11 seems to conflict with Article 26 (which states the dates teachers are to be notified). Article 11 states:

The parties recognize that moving between classrooms and work locations is a necessary part of school-districtoperations. Providing as much notice as possible when a unit member must move is a goal that the district and association share. Thus, any unit member who has to move work locations due to building relocation or as a result of a District mandated reorganization, will be notified within a week of the Principal’s notification. When it is deemed necessary for a unit member to move, unit members will be provided with the opportunity to discuss the move and the reasons for it. Support will be provided to assist unit members with moves. This includes, but is not limited to, activities such as transporting instructional materials, moving furniture, handling of special equipment, and set up. Appropriate moving materials and supplies will be made availableto unit members. Every effort will be made to minimizeinvoluntary classroom reassignments from year to year.

Teachers have definitely been moved after the job fair/involuntary placements have concluded. I can't imagine that if there was a recourse, that the teachers and principals in these situations would have figured it out.

My take on it is that while both parties recognize that moving work locations is necessary, and that as much notice as possible will be given to the employee, that notice has to be done prior to the March date referenced in Article 26. The purpose of this section from Article 11 is to address the assistance provided to make that move. Specific deadlines are address in 26.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, MCPS treats teachers like widgets, not like the professionals they are. They can be pulled out of one school and put into another (or 2 others, .5 at one and .5 at another), at will. It SUCKS.

Teachers are absolutely professionals. That means they have expertise and training such that they can work in any school (so long as the specific position is within their specific expertise). Your employer asking you to change where you work isn't at all inconsistent with treating a job as a profession.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, MCPS treats teachers like widgets, not like the professionals they are. They can be pulled out of one school and put into another (or 2 others, .5 at one and .5 at another), at will. It SUCKS.

Yes, but it’s “for the kids”.
Teachers are expendable and mcps treats them as such. They always have (at least for the 25 years I’ve been in the county). I saw this happen to teachers my first year, it is one reason that I’ve been at the same school for my entire 25 years.
Parents, remember this the next time DCUM tells you had strong the contract is and how the union runs everything. They don’t. The contract is purposely vague. Teachers have little professional autonomy and increasingly less personal autonomy (see the health insurance issue).

Are they? In 2022 are teachers really that expendable?

I'm curious about how the contract is vague. The language quoted in this thread and by the news source (I'm not a teacher in MCPS) looks fairly specific.

I'm not a contract expert, but maybe someone who is can shed some light. Article 11 seems to conflict with Article 26 (which states the dates teachers are to be notified). Article 11 states:

The parties recognize that moving between classrooms and work locations is a necessary part of school-districtoperations. Providing as much notice as possible when a unit member must move is a goal that the district and association share. Thus, any unit member who has to move work locations due to building relocation or as a result of a District mandated reorganization, will be notified within a week of the Principal’s notification. When it is deemed necessary for a unit member to move, unit members will be provided with the opportunity to discuss the move and the reasons for it. Support will be provided to assist unit members with moves. This includes, but is not limited to, activities such as transporting instructional materials, moving furniture, handling of special equipment, and set up. Appropriate moving materials and supplies will be made availableto unit members. Every effort will be made to minimizeinvoluntary classroom reassignments from year to year.

Teachers have definitely been moved after the job fair/involuntary placements have concluded. I can't imagine that if there was a recourse, that the teachers and principals in these situations would have figured it out.

This is about physical location such as if a teacher needs to move classrooms. The involuntary transfer has its own section in the contract.

Well, it says "classrooms and work locations," which can be read as being moved to another school "due to a District mandated reorganization."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kindergarten enrollment is always challenging and there are many last minute transfers. In higher income schools, the enrollments are off because families enroll in public but then go private. In some areas, many families do not enroll until very close to the school year, or have lots of families moving in over the summer, and their enrollment increases. There is no way to predict this in February/March.

Then MCPS should negotiate different contract language during this next round of talks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, MCPS treats teachers like widgets, not like the professionals they are. They can be pulled out of one school and put into another (or 2 others, .5 at one and .5 at another), at will. It SUCKS.

Yes, but it’s “for the kids”.
Teachers are expendable and mcps treats them as such. They always have (at least for the 25 years I’ve been in the county). I saw this happen to teachers my first year, it is one reason that I’ve been at the same school for my entire 25 years.
Parents, remember this the next time DCUM tells you had strong the contract is and how the union runs everything. They don’t. The contract is purposely vague. Teachers have little professional autonomy and increasingly less personal autonomy (see the health insurance issue).

Are they? In 2022 are teachers really that expendable?

I'm curious about how the contract is vague. The language quoted in this thread and by the news source (I'm not a teacher in MCPS) looks fairly specific.

I'm not a contract expert, but maybe someone who is can shed some light. Article 11 seems to conflict with Article 26 (which states the dates teachers are to be notified). Article 11 states:

The parties recognize that moving between classrooms and work locations is a necessary part of school-districtoperations. Providing as much notice as possible when a unit member must move is a goal that the district and association share. Thus, any unit member who has to move work locations due to building relocation or as a result of a District mandated reorganization, will be notified within a week of the Principal’s notification. When it is deemed necessary for a unit member to move, unit members will be provided with the opportunity to discuss the move and the reasons for it. Support will be provided to assist unit members with moves. This includes, but is not limited to, activities such as transporting instructional materials, moving furniture, handling of special equipment, and set up. Appropriate moving materials and supplies will be made availableto unit members. Every effort will be made to minimizeinvoluntary classroom reassignments from year to year.

Teachers have definitely been moved after the job fair/involuntary placements have concluded. I can't imagine that if there was a recourse, that the teachers and principals in these situations would have figured it out.

This is about physical location such as if a teacher needs to move classrooms. The involuntary transfer has its own section in the contract.

look again, it says between classrooms and work locations. Work locations is the part that conflicts with the section about involuntary transfers. This is exactly what the “contract is vague” PP is talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, MCPS treats teachers like widgets, not like the professionals they are. They can be pulled out of one school and put into another (or 2 others, .5 at one and .5 at another), at will. It SUCKS.

Yes, but it’s “for the kids”.
Teachers are expendable and mcps treats them as such. They always have (at least for the 25 years I’ve been in the county). I saw this happen to teachers my first year, it is one reason that I’ve been at the same school for my entire 25 years.
Parents, remember this the next time DCUM tells you had strong the contract is and how the union runs everything. They don’t. The contract is purposely vague. Teachers have little professional autonomy and increasingly less personal autonomy (see the health insurance issue).

Are they? In 2022 are teachers really that expendable?

I'm curious about how the contract is vague. The language quoted in this thread and by the news source (I'm not a teacher in MCPS) looks fairly specific.

I'm not a contract expert, but maybe someone who is can shed some light. Article 11 seems to conflict with Article 26 (which states the dates teachers are to be notified). Article 11 states:

The parties recognize that moving between classrooms and work locations is a necessary part of school-districtoperations. Providing as much notice as possible when a unit member must move is a goal that the district and association share. Thus, any unit member who has to move work locations due to building relocation or as a result of a District mandated reorganization, will be notified within a week of the Principal’s notification. When it is deemed necessary for a unit member to move, unit members will be provided with the opportunity to discuss the move and the reasons for it. Support will be provided to assist unit members with moves. This includes, but is not limited to, activities such as transporting instructional materials, moving furniture, handling of special equipment, and set up. Appropriate moving materials and supplies will be made availableto unit members. Every effort will be made to minimizeinvoluntary classroom reassignments from year to year.

Teachers have definitely been moved after the job fair/involuntary placements have concluded. I can't imagine that if there was a recourse, that the teachers and principals in these situations would have figured it out.

This is about physical location such as if a teacher needs to move classrooms. The involuntary transfer has its own section in the contract.

Well, it says "classrooms and work locations," which can be read as being moved to another school "due to a District mandated reorganization."

This is why its vague. It can be interpreted in different ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, MCPS treats teachers like widgets, not like the professionals they are. They can be pulled out of one school and put into another (or 2 others, .5 at one and .5 at another), at will. It SUCKS.

Teachers are absolutely professionals. That means they have expertise and training such that they can work in any school (so long as the specific position is within their specific expertise). Your employer asking you to change where you work isn't at all inconsistent with treating a job as a profession.

DP
I agree, as long as the change is within the parameters of the CBA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, MCPS treats teachers like widgets, not like the professionals they are. They can be pulled out of one school and put into another (or 2 others, .5 at one and .5 at another), at will. It SUCKS.

Yes, but it’s “for the kids”.
Teachers are expendable and mcps treats them as such. They always have (at least for the 25 years I’ve been in the county). I saw this happen to teachers my first year, it is one reason that I’ve been at the same school for my entire 25 years.
Parents, remember this the next time DCUM tells you had strong the contract is and how the union runs everything. They don’t. The contract is purposely vague. Teachers have little professional autonomy and increasingly less personal autonomy (see the health insurance issue).

Are they? In 2022 are teachers really that expendable?

I'm curious about how the contract is vague. The language quoted in this thread and by the news source (I'm not a teacher in MCPS) looks fairly specific.

I'm not a contract expert, but maybe someone who is can shed some light. Article 11 seems to conflict with Article 26 (which states the dates teachers are to be notified). Article 11 states:

The parties recognize that moving between classrooms and work locations is a necessary part of school-districtoperations. Providing as much notice as possible when a unit member must move is a goal that the district and association share. Thus, any unit member who has to move work locations due to building relocation or as a result of a District mandated reorganization, will be notified within a week of the Principal’s notification. When it is deemed necessary for a unit member to move, unit members will be provided with the opportunity to discuss the move and the reasons for it. Support will be provided to assist unit members with moves. This includes, but is not limited to, activities such as transporting instructional materials, moving furniture, handling of special equipment, and set up. Appropriate moving materials and supplies will be made availableto unit members. Every effort will be made to minimizeinvoluntary classroom reassignments from year to year.

Teachers have definitely been moved after the job fair/involuntary placements have concluded. I can't imagine that if there was a recourse, that the teachers and principals in these situations would have figured it out.

This is about physical location such as if a teacher needs to move classrooms. The involuntary transfer has its own section in the contract.

Well, it says "classrooms and work locations," which can be read as being moved to another school "due to a District mandated reorganization."

It's in Article 11: Physical Environments. Involuntary Transfers is Article 26.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, MCPS treats teachers like widgets, not like the professionals they are. They can be pulled out of one school and put into another (or 2 others, .5 at one and .5 at another), at will. It SUCKS.

Yes, but it’s “for the kids”.
Teachers are expendable and mcps treats them as such. They always have (at least for the 25 years I’ve been in the county). I saw this happen to teachers my first year, it is one reason that I’ve been at the same school for my entire 25 years.
Parents, remember this the next time DCUM tells you had strong the contract is and how the union runs everything. They don’t. The contract is purposely vague. Teachers have little professional autonomy and increasingly less personal autonomy (see the health insurance issue).

Are they? In 2022 are teachers really that expendable?

I'm curious about how the contract is vague. The language quoted in this thread and by the news source (I'm not a teacher in MCPS) looks fairly specific.

Yes, the way mcps sees it, they are. They’ll figure out a way to hire as many as possible and then put their hands over their ears when schools have a hard time making things work. They can and will shuffle people around to keep as many parents happy as possible. Parents aren’t going to fight for teachers to keep their insurance provider or stay at a school with low enrollment because of the hardship it may cause the teacher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, MCPS treats teachers like widgets, not like the professionals they are. They can be pulled out of one school and put into another (or 2 others, .5 at one and .5 at another), at will. It SUCKS.

Yes, but it’s “for the kids”.
Teachers are expendable and mcps treats them as such. They always have (at least for the 25 years I’ve been in the county). I saw this happen to teachers my first year, it is one reason that I’ve been at the same school for my entire 25 years.
Parents, remember this the next time DCUM tells you had strong the contract is and how the union runs everything. They don’t. The contract is purposely vague. Teachers have little professional autonomy and increasingly less personal autonomy (see the health insurance issue).

Are they? In 2022 are teachers really that expendable?

I'm curious about how the contract is vague. The language quoted in this thread and by the news source (I'm not a teacher in MCPS) looks fairly specific.

I'm not a contract expert, but maybe someone who is can shed some light. Article 11 seems to conflict with Article 26 (which states the dates teachers are to be notified). Article 11 states:

The parties recognize that moving between classrooms and work locations is a necessary part of school-districtoperations. Providing as much notice as possible when a unit member must move is a goal that the district and association share. Thus, any unit member who has to move work locations due to building relocation or as a result of a District mandated reorganization, will be notified within a week of the Principal’s notification. When it is deemed necessary for a unit member to move, unit members will be provided with the opportunity to discuss the move and the reasons for it. Support will be provided to assist unit members with moves. This includes, but is not limited to, activities such as transporting instructional materials, moving furniture, handling of special equipment, and set up. Appropriate moving materials and supplies will be made availableto unit members. Every effort will be made to minimizeinvoluntary classroom reassignments from year to year.

Teachers have definitely been moved after the job fair/involuntary placements have concluded. I can't imagine that if there was a recourse, that the teachers and principals in these situations would have figured it out.

This is about physical location such as if a teacher needs to move classrooms. The involuntary transfer has its own section in the contract.

look again, it says between classrooms and work locations. Work locations is the part that conflicts with the section about involuntary transfers. This is exactly what the “contract is vague” PP is talking about.

DP
I also understand it to cover a change in not only classrooms, but to a classroom in another building. I'm not a MCPS teacher and I don't think that is vague nor does it conflict with the section about involuntary transfers. I also do not think that the involuntary transfer timeline addressed in Article 26 to be vague.