Kalispell Teachers’ Union, Administration Find Solution in Dispute Over Pay for New Middle School Course

Board intervention was rendered moot in a dispute between the Kalispell Education Association and Kalispell Public Schools administrators, as the two parties went back to the drawing table to develop a memorandum of agreement that addressed teachers’ concerns about a lack of pay for their work on WIN, or “What I Need” courses.

The board approved that document at its Tuesday meeting. Board members credited teachers’ union leadership and school district administrators for working out the agreement, which came after an hours-long hearing on a grievance the union had filed at the board’s Jan. 13 meeting.

The union’s concerns stemmed from an argument they had put in more work on the new class than a “duty” classification on it acknowledged. Typically, teachers told the board at the last meeting, a “duty” classification means teachers have supervisory duties. They do not usually have to instruct students during duty periods, they said. But, a definition for a “duty” period isn’t explicitly outlined in the Kalispell Education Association’s collective bargaining agreement.

The WIN course, a new requirement at Kalispell Middle School this year, is billed as a class period where students work independently while staff ensure they remain on task. It is meant to focus on character-building lessons in line with the district’s “Profile of a Graduate,” though teachers said the class also provides outdoor recreation at times. But teachers said the WIN class required lesson planning, curriculum modifications and engaging with students — more than what teachers typically do during a “duty” period. Lynne Rider, the president of the teachers’ union, also previously told the Beacon the issue related to the larger challenge of staffing cuts the district has faced in recent years, which have required teachers to take on extra responsibilities already. In filing a grievance, the union aimed to pursue payment for Kalispell Middle School teachers’ extra work.

Administrators said they had tried to work with teachers to take some of the responsibilities off their plates by developing lessons for the course. With the course being a new requirement, they acknowledged it came with growing pains.  

In the end, the agreement teachers and administrators reached includes a plan to pay teachers in a one-time lump sum payment for the work they put into the course from August to January. It also redefined expectations that go along with the class, and required administrators to ask staff for feedback on the class ahead of the next school year.

The agreement makes clear neither party is at fault in the dispute, and that the payment “does not create a past practice or other precedence and is a self-contained remedy for this specific circumstance only.”

“We’re known as an innovative district, and as an innovative district, you do things new, and when you do things new, sometimes you bump into these gray areas,” said Matt Jensen, the superintendent of Kalispell Public Schools.  

Assistant superintendent Sara Cole said she was grateful for the opportunity to come back to the table to come up with an answer. Jensen added both teachers and administrators had more agreements than disagreements throughout the process — each wanted to see staff treated fairly and felt WIN time had potential to be valuable. And Rider said she thinks the agreement is a move in the right direction, adding the grievance process was a learning experience for both parties.

“This was a very strange development, because I don’t think the intention was to create another instructional course,” Rider said. “And I think the intention was truly to have something where the students were more engaged and were independent in their choices.

“One of the conversations that we did have is that I’m not sure if we’re to that point yet,” she continued. “I don’t know if we’ve built that culture yet, where we can have a sixth-grade student come in at the middle school and say, ‘oh, WIN time, this is what I need.’ I have students and what they need is sleep, or outside time. I think it’s going to be a constant culture building for us.”

Some board members had suggested such a document would have been the best solution to the issue in the first place, rather than having the grievance rise to the board’s level. They lauded administrators and teachers for coming back together to “snatch victory from the jaws of defeat,” as trustee Jinnifer Mariman put it.

“I was prepared to vote on it at the last meeting, knowing that that was not going to work out, because I could not see it working out this well,” said Ursula Wilde, another trustee. “… When I read this MOU, I was like, ‘well, there we go, that’s the answer that we could not give at the last meeting.’ We could not solve this problem. I was so grateful that it is not going to the next step of whatever it would be, however we had voted.”

Though the board expressed its unilateral agreement with the memorandum union members and administrators negotiated, it technically took the side of the administration in the grievance process. That’s due to wonky procedural rules — the board chose not to address a tabled motion from its previous meeting on the matter, which means a de facto siding with the administration. Some members stated they disliked the optics of that decision, even though they felt excited about the resolution.  

“I’m absolutely thrilled that you guys came together, and I think that’s really important and really wonderful,” said Rebecca Linden, another trustee. “I was just trying to point out that if we do not vote, we are voting, we are essentially, there is a vote on record that we are agreeing with the administration, and I don’t think we’re that comfortable about that.”

Others viewed it as a non-issue, given the outcome of the situation with administration and the union working out a solution that addressed the issue without board intervention.

“I guess I don’t see a negative with the fact that the union filed a grievance, because it created the MOU, and I think that history needs to be in there,” said Jack Fallon, a high school trustee. “I think if I was part of the union, I’d be inclined to say, ‘no, I don’t want to withdraw it. I’ll just let it run its course.’ And if they choose then, after 15 days to not file arbitration, then the decision’s been made and it just recorded history.”  

[email protected]