By Jen Schumann | Contributing Writer, Rocky Mountain Voice
The District 11 School Board has decided against renewing its master agreement with the local teacher union — the Colorado Springs Education Association (CSEA).
The CSEA is a branch of the Colorado Education Association (CEA), an affiliate of the largest teacher union – the National Education Association (NEA).
District 11 President Dr. Parth Melpakam described it as a move to empower nimble governance and improve student outcomes: “Without the master agreement, it just gives us a lot more flexibility to address some of our persistent challenges and change the narrative of a district that was becoming irrelevant in the landscape of Colorado Springs.”
“The agreement was a layer of complexity that limited our ability to act quickly in addressing staffing shortages and classroom needs,” he added.
However, dissenting voices, like District 11 School Board Director Julie Ott, have raised concerns.
“This decision to end the master agreement removes a framework that teachers have relied on for decades to ensure fairness and consistency,” Ott argued. “I fear this move will create unnecessary divisions and uncertainty for our staff, ultimately harming the very students we are here to support.”
She also questioned whether the district could adequately replace the agreement’s protections: “Without clear systems in place, this risks becoming a step backward for our educators and students.”
The master agreement, initially implemented 56 years ago, was intended to govern teacher protections and guide district operations. Sharon Simpson, daughter of a former board member who helped craft a version of the agreement, addressed the board.
“The master agreement has been wrongly portrayed as anti-parent, anti-excellence and anti-public,” she said. “This agreement was created to support collaboration and high-quality education, not to undermine it.”
Simpson emphasized that the agreement’s original intent was to foster a strong partnership between educators and the district, while maintaining accountability to the public.
Critics of the agreement emphasize how its terms hindered governance, such as public commentator James Saylor.
“Article 5 of the master agreement codifies the transfer of authority from the school board to a private organization, creating an imbalance that undermines the governance of this district,” he said.
For proponents of the decision, the master agreement represented more than outdated policy. It was a roadblock to flexibility and innovation.
“The district has two paragraphs of rights in the master agreement. The rest is all about teacher rights and the ability to grieve the district,” said District 11 Board Director Jason Jorgenson. “It’s making us pay all the same, which doesn’t allow us to incentivize hard-to-fill positions like speech pathologists or special ed teachers.”
District 11 Vice President Jill Haffley echoed the position: “The district will be able to focus more on improving student outcomes. It doesn’t allow us to be innovative in classroom and professional development opportunities.”
Financial burdens were also a factor.
“Every year we do interest-based bargaining, it’s about 80 hours of bargaining, involving high-level district admin and even hired lawyers. It’s just not fruitful,” Jorgenson explained. “We’ve spent over six figures in just legal fees dealing with grievances and arbitrations from the master agreement.”
Despite the board’s assurances, some teachers expressed fear about losing protections. Valerie Buffa defended the agreement, stating, “The master agreement is a living document, much like a constitution, that adapts to meet the needs of teachers and students. Removing it takes away decades of collaborative progress.”
Ott voiced similar concerns: “Without it, we risk destabilizing our classrooms and alienating the very educators we depend on to serve our students.”
Other board members sought to alleviate these fears. Haffley assured, “We are 100% pro-teacher. We want to make sure their salaries, leave time, duty-free lunches and everything they currently have is protected.”
Public commentary during the Dec. 11 meeting revealed a divided community. Maria Bergman celebrated the opportunity: “This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to free this district from the overreach of a union that has acted more in its own interests than those of our children.”
Andrew Sandstrom read a letter from veteran teacher James Kanoby, who supported ending the agreement: “As a veteran teacher, I have seen how the master agreement has limited the district’s ability to innovate and respond to changing needs. It’s time for a new approach that prioritizes students over bureaucracy.”
Stacey Adair, a 19-year veteran teacher in District 11 and a non-union member, shared her experiences highlighting inequities within the system under the master agreement.
Adair recounted a specific incident when her lawyer was barred from representing her in an HR meeting because of the union’s sole representation clause: “My lawyer was told he couldn’t attend the meeting, leaving me without representation at a critical time,” Adair shared.
She questioned the union’s claim of representing all teachers. Rhetorically she asked, “Does the union represent all teachers when only union members are appointed to important district decision-making committees?”
Approximately 40% of District 11 teachers are not CSEA union members.
“A significant portion of our teachers have chosen not to join the union,” Melpakam noted. He also emphasized the importance of representing all voices in district decisions.
The board’s 6-to-1 vote to end the master agreement with the CSEA, with District 11 Board Director Julie Ott as the sole dissenter.
The District 11 board has directed Gaal to implement the employee handbook as the new framework, replacing the authority held by the master agreement for more than 56 years. This handbook will now serve as the foundation for maintaining teacher protections while providing operational clarity.
Superintendent Gaal shared that this handbook will begin development during the Jan. 15 work session, inviting all stakeholders, especially teachers, to ensure it meets the needs of all staff through a collaborative and inclusive process.
“This handbook will ensure that all staff have the support they need while reflecting a collaborative and inclusive process,” Gaal emphasized.
As District 11 moves forward, the focus remains on balancing governance, innovation and the district’s commitment to supporting educators and students alike: “The No. 1 way to improve student achievement is to ensure high-quality instruction in every single classroom,” Melpakam stated.
The board has provided an update to the community following this decision, emphasizing their commitment to transparency and progress.
They announced plans to provide teachers with a streamlined process for accessing essential resources and tools, ensuring transparency and addressing operational needs, while also prioritizing collaborative stakeholder involvement and a renewed focus on improving student outcomes through high-quality instruction.