Upper Perkiomen School District

The Board and Association have been negotiating since the Spring. The Association’s current 3-year contract with the District expired in June, 2022. The terms of that contract are still in effect until a new contract is approved. The Board greatly appreciates its teachers. These negotiations are focused on providing a fair contract that values the work of our teachers and also the District’s many financial responsibilities, including its obligations to taxpayers.

The Board Negotiations Team is made up of three board members. The Board Negotiations Team works with members of the Administration to develop contract proposals. That team updates the full School Board, which works collaboratively to provide direction to the negotiating team.

Salary, benefits, and the way time is assigned during the school day/week. These are the most frequently debated issues in the majority of teacher contracts.

Compared to school districts such as Souderton, Pottsgrove, Pottstown, and Perkiomen Valley, Upper Perkiomen teacher salaries are very competitive. Our top of scale teacher salary is the highest of those districts at $105,800.

The Board’s proposal included an increase to teachers’ salaries each year of the proposed three year contract, along with step movement on the salary schedule each year. The proposed salary increases were 1.0% in 2022-23 plus step, 1.0% in 2023-24 plus step, and 1.0% in 2024-25 plus step movement.  Including step movement with a 1.0% salary increase each year, the total percentage of salary increase in the District proposal for 2022-23 is 3.57%, for 2023-24 is 3.38%, and for 2024-25 is 3.21%.     

The Board’s proposal also included a plan to keep the existing core healthcare plan, Independence Blue Cross Personal Choice, making minimal changes to the plan structure and copays. This would reduce the cost of coverage for both employees and the District. Additionally, the Board proposed reducing employee premiums from 16% to 11%, a savings of more than $100 per month for employees carrying family coverage. The Board also proposed the introduction of a High Deductible Plan as an option with a Health Savings Account, partially funded by the district each year for the next three years. The high deductible plan is a secondary, entirely optional that may be an attractive option for some employees.

No, the Board’s proposal increased guaranteed teacher preparation time between 25 - 30 minutes each cycle for all instructional bargaining unit members. The Board understands the importance of teacher preparation time.

In the expired teachers contract, the guaranteed teacher prep time during each five-day cycle at the K-5 elementary level is 200 minutes per cycle (40 minutes per day), and the guaranteed teacher prep time each six-day cycle at the 6-12 secondary level is 275 minutes per cycle (average 46 minutes per day). In addition to prep time, there is “unassigned time” in the teacher work day, that is time when teachers are not working directly with students and are needed to assist with various functions of supporting the school (e.g. lunch/recess duty, classroom or hallway coverage, etc.) The “unassigned time” at the K-5 level is 90 minutes per cycle (average 18 minutes per day), at the 6-8 level is 79 minutes per cycle (average 13 minutes per day), and at the 9-12 level is 67 minutes per cycle (average 11 minutes per day). 

In the Board’s proposal, the guaranteed teacher prep time was INCREASED to 230 minutes per cycle at the K-5 level, and 300 minutes per cycle at the 6-12 level. The remaining “unassigned time” would then be at the discretion of the administration to assign as needed. 

One of the adjustments to the proposed contract language from the Board regarding providing additional guaranteed teacher prep time each cycle was to examine the difference between the schedules at the K-5 elementary schools and the block schedules at the 6-12 secondary schools. At the K-5 elementary level, the school schedule allows for daily preparation time each of the 5 days of the cycle, in addition to another block of 30 minutes of guaranteed prep time on one of the cycle days. At the 6-12 secondary level with the current block schedule that both the MS and HS run on the 6 day cycle, prep time each day does not maximize the continuous minutes of time for teachers to prepare for their classes and lessons as well as the time for administration to address areas of need at the school.  With the additional guaranteed teacher preparation time proposed for the 6-12 grade teachers, some teachers schedules would allow for daily preparation time, some for larger blocks of teacher preparation time on certain days of the cycle but all instructional bargaining unit members are guaranteed the total minutes proposed over the course of the 6 days cycle.

At the start of the 2022-23 school year, the Board increased the daily rates for both dedicated building substitutes (increased to $165 per day) and day-to-day substitute teachers (increased $135 per day) to be more competitive with local school districts. In addition, the long-term substitute rate for assignments greater than 20 consecutive days was increased to $185 per day. For vacancies that are greater than a semester, the District continues to hire substitutes at the Bachelor’s Step 1 rate (approximately $252 per day) to solidify substitutes for long-term teacher absences due to family medical leave, sabbaticals and other longer term teacher absences. 

The District currently has 12 “building - based” substitutes who report to the same building every day. This more than doubles the number of building based substitutes the district had last school year, and we continually look to onboard additional building based substitutes as available. Additionally, the District has 84 daily substitutes assigned to Upper Perkiomen schools, who fill day-to-day needs, as compared to last school year, when we had 49 daily subs. We currently have more substitutes available than we have in recent history, and we continue to reach out to local colleges when we have absences and to increase the substitute pool for when student teachers complete their degree programs.    

Fact Finding is a common practice in school district contract negotiations. It’s a formal process supported by the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board (PLRB), which will appoint a neutral Fact Finder to preside over a formal hearing, and review both parties’ proposals along with a range of information and data. At this time, the Fact Finding process will begin at the next PLRB meeting scheduled on January 17, 2023. 

After conducting an analysis of this information, the Fact Finder will issue a series of package recommendations within 40 days. Both the Board and the Association must then vote to accept or reject the entire report within 10 days of receiving it. If either side rejects it, the report can be made public and the parties must vote again. The recommendations of the Fact Finder are not binding, and both sides could continue to negotiate or take additional steps. Under the law, no strike may occur during the fact finding resolution process.

Even if it doesn’t result in both parties accepting all the recommendations, the Fact Finder’s report often becomes a blueprint for the ultimate settlement.

In September, the Board and Association agreed to work with a Mediator to help to resolve the issues at dispute. A Mediator is appointed by the PA Bureau of Mediation to assist with and facilitate the negotiations process, particularly when difficult issues arise at the bargaining table. The State Mediator does not have the power to issue a formal recommendation. The mediation process is less formal than the Fact Finding process.

The complexity of contract negotiations has increased, and the Board felt that just as the union has a state representative assigned to be at the table during negotiations, it would be helpful and responsible to have a professional negotiator assist the Board. Salaries represent the largest part of any school district’s budget. The financial stability of the district, as well as taxpayer dollars, is at stake. The Board feels that enlisting the help of a professional negotiator is a financially responsible decision. The presence of an attorney is not meant to be confrontational in any way, but rather to support a collaborative, informed process.