The school board voted 3-3-2 on Wednesday to reject a proposal by Dr. Janey to add professional development hours for teachers to the calendar by taking them from parent-teacher conference days. Under the proposed resolution, the board would also have agreed to count three half-days as full days, so the school system could say it was providing students with 180 full instructional days, as required by law.
Ms. Ginsberg, Mr. Martin and Mr. Reinoso voted against the proposed resolution. Mr. Lockridge, Ms. Smith and Ms. Thornhill voted in favor. Ms. Graham and Mr. Wells abstained. Ms. Cafritz was absent.
Abby Hairston, the school board's general counsel, told the board it can simply "waive" the municipal regulation that requires 180 full days of instruction. She cited 5 DCMR 108.3, which says that the board can waive its own by-laws during meetings (for example, who can take part in the formal board discussions). "That allows you to waive board rules by majority vote," Ms. Hairston said. "The only issue is for the board to change the one provision in 305.10 that counts a full day as opposed to one half-day." Ms. Hairston, who has been the school system's lawyer for seven months, said the board has "waived" substantive law in the past, but she could not give any examples.
Mr. Wells said he couldn't recall the board ever having done that, and he said if the board wants to change the law, it should follow the regular rulemaking process, which gives the public a right to formally comment on any proposed changes: "The public and parents have a right to notice and comment. We have to follow the law. Otherwise, it undermines the confidence of the board. It undermines the confidence of the public."
Ms. Hairston also said that when the board approved the union contract this summer, promising teachers more professional development days, the contract superseded the law.
Mr. Wells: "I'm not convinced that you can agree to a labor contract that is in violation of DCMR. I don't know if that's how you amend your regs -- through collective bargaining. It seems to me what this is, is emergency rulemaking. At least for me, this is creating even further confusion. It seems to me that what we're proposing to do is amend Title V. And there's a process for doing that. I'm not sure this clearly states and follows that process."
He asked her if she was sure the board could amend the regulations by "waiving" the rules. Ms. Hairston backed off a little: "To be honest with you, the language [at 108.3] is not clear enough." And on the issue of a labor agreement superseding law: "I did not really look at it from that perspective but I need to."
Mr. Reinoso: "I don't think this is the way to change DCMR. these board regulations have the force of law, and i'm not at all convinced that you can change those regulations through a negotiation process that doesn't follow the similar process required for changing those regulations."
Along with Ms. Ginsberg, he said he was upset that parents would have less time to speak with teachers at parent-teacher conferences. Mr. Reinoso also said he was upset that he had not been given the proposed resolution earlier. "This is another proposal that is showing up in front of board members literally moments beofre board members are asked to vote. This is just not the way we should be doing business. It makes it very difficult for board members to react" and get feedback from the community. "I don't think this is the way we should be doing business."
Dr. Janey defended his communications with the board: "I think this administration has done more consulting with this board than I have ever been associated with" anywhere else.
Ms. Ginsberg said that, to resolve the competing requirements (professional development promised to teachers in the union contract, and instructional time required by law), she would be in favor of adding time to the calendar: "I would love to see us adding a day and a half instead of doing a slight of hand."
Ms. Graham, also: "I'd be of the persuasion that we add the days, and find the money to pay for it."
Dr. Janey: "We don't have the money to do that." He said it would cost $10-$12 million for each day added to the calendar. Mr. Martin challenged this, saying that at that rate, 180 school days would cost $1.8 billion, almost double the school system's budget.
Ms. Thorhnhill and Mr. Lockridge both expressed some uneasiness about the proposed calendar changes, but voted for it. Ms. Smith said he wants a new process by which resolutions are prepared for the board: there should be a certification of legal sufficiency, signed off by the general counsel. He was upset that the calendar the board had approved months earlier also violated the law.
Ms. Graham: "It feels to me like we're rushing this right now." She said DCPS should also be fixing next year's calendar at the same time.
The current calendar is still legally deficient (there aren't the legally mandated 180 days of instruction, and there aren't the monthly professional development half-days for teachers called for in the union contract). The board will consider the calendar again in October.
