Also see: Valeria Silva ‘definitely’ done as St. Paul superintendent in 2018

The teachers union and negotiators for St. Paul Public Schools remain far apart on plans for addressing school climate and behavior through the next two-year teachers contract.

Without significant movement during mediation sessions scheduled for Thursday and Feb. 25, union leaders say, they may take the next formal step toward a strike.

St. Paul Federation of Teachers President Denise Rodriguez and Vice President Nick Faber discussed contract negotiations in an interview last week.

The interview was edited for brevity and clarity.

Q: There were more than 1,000 suspensions in the first quarter of this school year. That’s way up from the past three years but about the same number as in 2011. Do you feel student behavior is actually worse this year, or are principals just more willing to suspend students?

Nick Faber: It’s partially just a reflection of not having a system in place around school climate or an agreement. In our time in St. Paul Public Schools, having this pendulum of suspending kids left and right, zero tolerance, and then we swing over here and there’s nothing, and now we’re back to suspending kids left and right.

Our concern is that that’s not addressing the needs of students, it’s not addressing the needs of buildings, and it’s really important that we get the staffing we need in our buildings so that we’re keeping kids in class, keeping kids in schools, in a positive, restorative place.

Denise Rodriguez: Kids have a way of letting us know things aren’t working, and our students’ needs are not being met. They’re letting us know by these behaviors that are resulting in suspensions.

What should the district do to improve school climate and safety?

NF: Part of our frustration is we feel like we’ve been saying this, and this is part of what we’ve brought to the table. Staffing is important.

We’re hearing from teachers left and right that there’s an issue in their room; they don’t necessarily want the kid suspended or thrown out of the room, they just need support right away. But they make a phone call to the office or there’s walkie-talkies and there’s nobody available on the walkie-talkie because we’re so understaffed.

Especially staffing like school social workers and counselors who not only know how to work with students who are in crisis but also can help teachers deal with that better in their classroom as well.

We think that there’s been plenty of time for the district to do top-down methods of dealing with disciplinary referrals and suspensions and the racial disparities within that. And it’s time now to give power to the parents and teachers of the buildings to make more decisions about that.

So parents and teachers need more opportunities and spaces to look at data. And we’ve shown that in our school climate improvement teams (SCIT), where we have principals actually supporting that work, parents and teachers are allowed to look at that data and make critical decisions about their building. And so it’s time for the folks who know our students the best — the parents and teachers — to start making those decisions at the building level.

Q: Are there schools doing that well already?

NF: Our school climate improvement teams? Yeah, Murray (Middle School) is one. The principal actually took what we put forth — she was doing a lot of this stuff already — but used our support to strengthen that work even more.

We have incredible parent and teacher support for SCIT that continues to meet at Wellstone (Elementary) that’s had varying degrees of administrative support.

Q: You’ve said more suspensions are not the answer and that the union supports restorative practices, which are designed to repair the harm done and restore relationships. Why aren’t all schools practicing restoration?

DR: It takes funds; it takes time to do the training and then reflect on it. And it can’t be a one-shot, two-hour training and boom, you have a restorative justice school. It needs to take time to implement it fully, and it needs the funding that we’ve requested in our proposal.

NF: And it’s a culture shift within the building. It actually just takes doing it and actually allowing parents and teachers to do that work rather than our district trying to pretend it’s happening when it isn’t.

(The administration made) presentations to board members last meeting about restorative justice happening in those schools. When we actually talk to the teachers in those buildings, they’re saying no, that’s not happening. We have to stop pretending it’s happening and actually engage the public in a meaningful way in making it happen.

Q: The superintendent has said some teachers don’t think restorative practices work. Does the union have a responsibility to get all the teachers on board?

NF: The way we’ve pushed toward implementing things is to allow teachers to be the best sellers of what we’re doing.

For example, the Parent Teacher Home Visit Project is not mandated, and the reason it’s spread so much is because parents and teachers are out there talking about it.

So the same thing with restorative practices — if we actually empower buildings to own it and develop that work on their own and see it be successful, that’s the best selling point. We don’t sell teachers on this stuff by having it come from top down. Having it come from their peers — look at how our school runs differently these days; look how happy everybody is to be at work — that will get everybody on board. But that’s why we don’t want something mandated across the board. It’s got to come from that SCIT team.

Q: Board member Chue Vue expressed some concern at the committee-of-the-board meeting last month that we’re focused too much on safety, at the expense of academics. Do you share that concern?

DR: I think academics can’t come if the environment isn’t conducive to learning.

NF: How can learning take place until there’s a calm community established there?

Q: What do you think of the new school board so far?

DR: We appreciate that they came in and they brought in the voices they heard during the campaign, even though it didn’t seem well received.

Q: Is the district moving in the right direction?

NF: I don’t think they’re moving in any different direction, and that’s part of the issue. I think part of our frustration is wanting to move in a direction of giving parents and teachers more control and voice in their schools, and we’re not seeing that at the bargaining table, we’re not seeing that at presentations to the board.

DR: I think oftentimes things look good on paper, but they don’t play out that way in a building.

NF: If we were headed in the right direction, we would not be having more suspensions in our buildings right now, and we would be closing those racial disparities in who’s getting suspended and who’s not.

Q: You’re in contract negotiations with the district. Besides salary and working conditions, you have proposals on things like school integration, responsible banking and opting out of standardized tests. Why does the union choose to include these issues in contract negotiations?

DR: As teachers, we’ve always been focused on the four walls of our classroom. But we’ve learned as a union that our contract is the most powerful and enforceable way we have to improve our students’ learning conditions. So for our last couple contract negotiations, we’ve stepped outside of traditional wages and benefits, things that are traditionally bargained for and negotiated in a contract.

If there’s something we can do in bargaining for the common good and we can help create more stability in our students’ families’ lives, we want to be able to use our contract to do that.

Q: Does that complicate things, hold things up?

NF: Actually, those are the proposals we’re making the most progress on.

Our members are always told that they can only control what’s in their classroom, that they can’t do anything about poverty that kids come into the building with. Our union is about empowering our members to make a difference in their students’ lives, and this is one way that we can.

Our members are saying, no, we don’t want to work for a district that does banking with a bank that’s going to foreclose on our kids’ homes during the school year. That’s wrong. Let’s find a bank that won’t do that.

Q: Your latest contract update described mediation as “slow moving.” Do you think there will be a vote to strike at some point?

DR: I think that if there isn’t significant movement, our negotiation team will go to the executive board and ask them to authorize a strike vote. The very first step is to authorize a strike vote.

You can continue to mediate, and that doesn’t mean it’s ever going to go to a vote. But if there is not significant movement, I would imagine that the negotiation team would go to the executive board and ask them.

Is there a timeline?

DR: Well, we have two mediations, two full days, the 18th (Thursday) and the 25th. So I’d imagine we’d need to see some significant movement by the end of February.

NF: We would be really hopeful that we can settle this by the 25th, but we definitely need to see more movement from the district on those proposals around staffing especially.