MIDLAND, Mich. — Teacher contracts throughout Michigan contain language that could leave school districts at a severe disadvantage under the state’s new union-backed laws. The Mackinac Center for Public Policy examined collective bargaining agreements in 200 of the state’s largest school districts and released a report that will help prepare school boards for these policy changes that will impact their future negotiations. The report encourages school systems to put students before teachers unions by taking a close look at their existing contracts.

Reforms passed in 2011 gave districts the discretion to make student learning the deciding factor in personnel decisions. For over a decade, school administrators possessed the authority to decide how to recruit, evaluate, assign and reward teachers. These policies were inspired by President Obama’s Race to the Top program and were part of a broad, bipartisan effort to improve public schools across the nation.

Michigan school districts were prohibited from bargaining over subjects that directly impact the quality of classroom teaching as a result of these reforms. These subjects included:

• Classroom observations. 
• Teacher disciplinary procedures.
• Performance evaluations.
• Teacher layoff and recall procedures.
• Teacher placement decisions.
• Contracting out noninstructional services to private service providers.

Districts across the state now face new challenges, as the laws repealing those reforms went into effect last month. School officials will now be asked to bargain over terms and conditions of employment previously left off the table. For many officials, this will be the first time they have had to consider these subjects while bargaining.

School districts, unfortunately, did not consistently implement the 2011 reforms. The Mackinac Center’s review found that contracts in most districts still contained language concerning prohibited subjects of bargaining. Only a few contracts appeared to be fully compliant with the law. There were no penalties prescribed by law for districts that failed to comply.

Some districts’ contracts include clauses that aim to revive these once illegal terms automatically, with no negotiations needed. These districts could find themselves facing legal challenges if they do not immediately change their personnel practices to reflect these changes. District officials should carefully review their existing contracts and look for this type of language. Current school board members may not have participated in negotiating these contracts, but they will now have to abide by the changes.

Even districts without these provisions in their contracts will experience significant changes. Teachers unions will likely demand that school boards immediately revert to their pre-2011 contract language. But this would be unwise. Most of the policies dealing with teacher recruitment, evaluation, placement and pay prioritize union seniority over student learning. That is, they require districts to make all personnel decisions based strictly on a teacher’s seniority status, not on how well the teacher helps students learn. In negotiating new contracts under the new laws, districts should preserve as much control as possible to prioritize teacher effectiveness and student outcomes.

“School districts have been prohibited from bargaining over many subjects for over a decade, but those subjects just got put back on the bargaining table,” said Steve Delie, director of labor policy at the Mackinac Center. “It is critical that school boards be prepared to negotiate terms that maximize student outcomes and success while ensuring proper accountability.”

Read the full study here.