Berkeley Heights Grading Policy Dispute Ends as Labor Complaint Is Dismissed

Context

Late last year, the Berkeley Heights Board of Education made changes to the District Grading Policy (2624) which sought to improve uniformity and alignment to academic standards. This prompted the Berkeley Heights Administrators Association and the Berkeley Heights Education Association (Administrators’ and Teachers’ unions) to write the BOE with their objections.

According to a confidential source familiar with the matter, it also led to a labor practice complaint against the District.

BOE representative Pam Stanley referenced concerns by the two Unions during a BOE Meeting in her discussion of the policy changes – as a result NJ21st contributors submitted an OPRA request seeking correspondence from both organizations related to the grading policy.

Serendipity

Prior to this chain of events NJ21st published an article early November explaining that under New Jersey statute and the district’s own teachers’ contract, the BOE has primary authority to establish policy on instruction and academic standards.

Letters

In its letter to the Board of Education, the BHEA wrote:

“Several components of the proposed policy—such as prescribing the number of assignments per marking period, mandating test-correction procedures, and establishing rigid requirements for the timing and frequency of grade submissions—directly affect educators’ terms and conditions of employment. Under state labor law, these matters are considered mandatory subjects of negotiation and therefore must be bargained with the Association before any changes can be implemented.”

While the BHAA expressed opposition to the policy, it also seemed to argue the District was already following it:

“It is also important to note that many of the expectations outlined in the policy are already well established practices in our district. Teachers, administrators, and support staff regularly analyze assessment data, review grading trends, and collaborate to make informed instructional decisions that support student learning. We continually refine our approaches based on evidence and student outcomes.”

After reviewing both letters I sent an email to the BHEA and BHAA and cc’d the BOE arguing that their legal interpretation was incorrect and criticized their focus on procedure and negotiation while failing to address student outcomes and academic performance.

“I also cannot recall a time when either organization questioned the enormous amount of resources that have gone into security theater. I cannot recall an objection when the Mayor turned the District’s budget meeting into a spectacle for her legacy project which was wrapped in questionable decisions instead of focusing on our students. Yet this grading policy is what prompts two formal letters.”

Dismissal

According to the same confidential source noted earlier, the complaint was reviewed by the New Jersey Public Employment Relations Commission and dismissed. An appeal is technically possible however dismissals based on managerial prerogative or non-negotiability are tough to overturn.

01/08/2016 Update:
We reached out to the BHEA, BHAA and District leadership for comment on the day the article was published.

The BHEA provided the following response:

“Hi John,

As this is an ongoing legal matter, the BHEA has no comment.

Have a good day,”

We have not gotten a response from the BHAA or District leadership -if and when that happens we will include it in this article or-if substantial – publish separately.

Full Letters and Policy Referenced in Article

Logos shown for identification purposes in reporting on a grading policy dispute.