March 7 

Today, we met with the Portland Association of Teachers' (PAT) bargaining team at their headquarters. Portland Public Schools presented our financial proposals and included a counter proposal, and PAT brought four counter proposals. In the February 14 update, we shared that the parties had tentatively agreed to Article 4 and today we tentatively agreed to Article 25. 

Notably, the district presented the core of its financial offer, which is a 2.5% cost–of-living increase each of the next three years. Paired with longevity increases, this means approximately half of PPS educators would get at least a 5.9% increase each year for the next three years.

In the course of presenting this package during the first session, PAT bargaining committee members called ODE data about PPS into question. They said it differed from their classroom experiences with one member calling it “a manipulation of reality.” We reiterated the integrity of our data and the need for respectful engagement during the second session.

PAT also brought two speech language pathologists and one special education teacher to share their experiences. 

We meet again with PAT at their headquarters on April 4 from 11-7pm. 

You can watch the bargaining session online: part one, part two, and part three. You can see the PowerPoint PPS presented here.

February 22

Today, we met with the Portland Association of Teachers' (PAT) bargaining team at the Dr. Matthew J. Prophet Education Center. Portland Public Schools brought counter proposals on four articles, and PAT brought a counter proposal on one article. We expected to bargain over the course of the whole day, but PAT ended negotiations early, ostensibly because we did not bring them a proposal about economic issues (salary, benefits, retirement, etc.). You can watch the exchange here.

As recently as the night before, we reconfirmed that the agenda for today did not include an economic proposal. The proposals on today’s agenda had no economic bearing, so it’s unclear why PAT was unable to continue discussions on the five articles under discussion. 

This is anchored in a desire to be thorough and accurate. We will seriously consider all proposals, and respond substantively. We will bring a financial proposal for consideration on March 7.

January 10

The Portland Association of Teachers (PAT) was scheduled to present a counter proposal on Article 9 to the District’s counter proposal from December. They did not do this, but instead posed questions about the District’s counter proposal from December.

The discussion focused on two areas:

• Existing contract language requiring mandatory minimum five-day suspensions in certain situations (9.4.14)

• Additional language proposed by PAT, which would establish subjective environmental safety reasons for why any “professional educator may refuse to work…”  (9.15)

Five-Day Mandatory Minimum Punishments

PAT’s bargaining team argued that the existing contract’s mandatory minimum suspensions should be kept because those days are an opportunity to come up with a plan to address a disruptive student’s behavior.

We strongly disagree. As we’ve said before, these punishments stigmatize students, lack context, and are a stark departure from our shared commitment to restorative justice. These punishments mirror the flawed mandatory minimum punishments which have failed so many youth in our criminal justice system – which is why the next five largest districts in Oregon do not have such language in their contracts. Finally, we contend that the decision to suspend should be a rare response to a student’s behavior and not a go-to response when adults need time to address the student’s needs. We owe it to students and families to address these types of situations without losing learning opportunities.

Environmental Safety Language

PAT’s bargaining team defended their proposed contract language, which would outline environmental reasons why any individual “professional educator may refuse to work…”  The proposed language would expand those situations beyond the existing contractual safeguards, which allows for such action when there is a threat of substantial injury or significant health hazard.

We share PAT’s core goal – to keep our students safe and healthy – and we know that many PPS learning spaces need modernization, either for their age or because of the changing climate. We are in fact working to modernize and update all of our schools, in part thanks to the investments of our voters in school bonds. We can’t keep students out of school while that work happens though.

But we struggle to understand how we could keep schools operational with the language PAT would add. It would allow an educator to effectively shut down a classroom over subjective standards of cleanliness. Some larger facilities projects – some of which are crucial, we agree – can only be made without students around or render whole buildings inoperable for long periods of time. The language they want to add could regularly shut down classrooms and leave students without spaces to learn.  As we work to achieve the mutual goal of safe and clean working and learning spaces, we must find solutions that don’t result in a loss of instructional time for students.

You can watch the bargaining session online here

December 13

This afternoon, PPS met with the Portland Association of Teachers (PAT) to share our counter-proposal to Article 9. You can review our written proposal here. 

The district remains resolute in its goal:  To keep our students engaged in learning, and in safe and supportive classroom environments. This includes:

• Creating reasonable and trauma-informed standards

• Reorienting PPS’ student discipline toward research-based restorative practices

• Removing mandatory minimum sentencing rules

Unfortunately, PAT’s original proposal includes language that:

• creates a separate time-out room to “remove a student from class” at the discretion of the professional educator (9.4.1 - 9.4.6)

• preserves a mandatory minimum five-day suspension for a threat/causing fear of harm and mandatory expulsion for physical attack/harm (9.4.14)

• formalizes highly-subjective reasons why a “professional educator may refuse to work…”  (9.15)

We will reconvene for our next bargaining session with PAT on January 10, 2023, from 1 pm to 4 pm.

As part of our collective bargaining, we expect PAT to present their full contract proposal on January 30 from 9 am to 1pm. PPS will present our full proposal (minus the economics) on January 31 from 1 to 4pm. 

November 16

This afternoon, the Portland Association of Teachers (PAT) continued its presentation about its proposed changes to Article 9. You can review PAT’s written proposal here. 

 PAT’s proposal includes language that:

• emphasizes the importance of restorative justice and a multi-tiered system of support (9.3)

• creates a separate time-out room to “remove a student from class” at the discretion of the professional educator (9.4.1 - 9.4.6)

• preserves mandatory minimums of a five-day suspension for a threat/causing fear of harm and mandatory expulsion for physical attack/harm (9.4.14)

• suggests language related to environmental safety,  proposing subjective reasons for why any individual “professional educator may refuse to work…”  (9.15)

The district remains resolute in its goal: to keep our students engaged in learning in safe and supportive classrooms.  The preservation of mandatory discipline minimums is unfortunate and a key contributing factor to PPS’ disproportionate discipline and exclusion of Black, Native, and students of color from classroom learning. We will reconvene for the fourth bargaining session with PAT in December (date to be determined) to discuss this disagreement and respond to the union bargaining team’s proposed language.  

You can watch today’s bargaining session online here.  

November 1

This afternoon, the Portland Association of Teachers (PAT) presented its proposal for changes to Article 9. You can review PAT’s written proposal here. 

Highlights of PAT’s proposal include language:

• On the importance of restorative justice and a multi-tiered system of support (9.3)

• That creates a separate room to “remove a student from class” at the discretion of the professional educator (9.4.1 - 9.4.6)

• That preserves mandatory minimums of a five-day suspension for a threat/causing fear of harm and mandatory expulsion for physical attack/harm (9.4.14)

• On environmental safety (9.15)

We will reconvene for the third bargaining session with PAT on November 16 from 2:00 pm to 5:00 pm to continue reviewing the PAT proposal.

You can watch today’s bargaining session online: Part I, Part II.

October 26

Next Tuesday (November 1), PPS and PAT will convene for the second bargaining session. At this meeting, PPS expects PAT to respond with a counterproposal to our proposed changes to Article 9, “Discipline and Safety.” 

Below are two letters to the PPS community that further explain the District’s position on our proposed changes:

• PPS Is Committed To Special Education Students: Explaining Proposed Changes To Article 9 On Discipline And Safety
  
• Why Does the PAT Contract Require A Mandatory Minimum on Student Discipline?

October 12

This morning we had a productive first bargaining session with PAT. The focus was on Article 9, "Discipline and Safety."

PPS presented three main elements to PAT:

• Discipline Disparities by Race at PPS

• Current issues in the contract language, 

• Proposed changes to the contract language, including:

  • Creating reasonable and trauma-informed standards

  • Reorienting PPS’ student discipline towards research-based restorative practices

  • Removing mandatory sentencing rules. 

We will reconvene for the second bargaining session with PAT on November 1, 2022, from 2 pm to 5 pm. PPS expects PAT to respond with a counterproposal at this session on Article 9, “Discipline and Safety.”