While we are engaged in primarily a traditional/positional bargaining process with the University, there are elements that come from the Interest-Based Bargaining (IBB) approach we believe are helpful to the process and which we will be utilizing in our negotiations effort. One of those elements is sharing our story. In IBB, sharing your story means moving beyond only positions or proposals to explain the why — the needs, concerns, fears, experiences, goals — through narrative to provide context to those proposals and help folks understand perspective and potentially identify mutual interests and find mutually beneficial solutions in collaborative rather than only adversarial ways.
The story we shared with the University at our first bargaining meeting on January 7, 2026
We thought it would be appropriate to begin our time together by providing some context to our work and some background to the proposals you’ll see from us at the table.
Our team, as you heard, is made up of folks from various positions in the Lab Schools — Metcalf, U-High, and HILIA. Some folks on our bargaining team are relatively new to the Lab Schools. Others have worked here for several years. All of us are here to represent the priorities and perspectives of a variety of people who educate the students of the Lab Schools, help make the Lab Schools places of excellence in teaching and learning, and help to teach, train and mentor the next generation of educators studying at ISU. And we’ve each been selected by our members to represent their interests and to secure a fair and equitable contract.Many of us are new to this process. And none of us at this table have bargained together before. I say “together” rather than “against each other” because this does not have to be an adversarial process. It can be about engaging in difficult conversations with respect, understanding perspectives, addressing both mutual and diverse interests, and solving problems collaboratively.
While we anticipate primarily using a traditional or positional bargaining process, there are aspects of interest-based or win-win bargaining that we believe could be helpful and that you will likely see us use. Sharing this “story” is one of those. Discussing rationale for proposals and seeking to understand interests is another. And addressing elephants in the room prior to engaging in bargaining conversations is yet another.
It is important we address a significant elephant in the room right at the start.
It’s taken us a long time to get here to this table. Our work began in the fall of 2023. It’s worth noting the University has used every lever available to them — and expended a lot of resources — to prevent this from happening at all. Once it was inevitable, the University has used those levers to drag out the process and slow things down as much as possible. Even as we sit at this bargaining table, we’re preparing for a battle in the courts.
The position of the University up to this point is clear and the message has been received.
Our hope and expectation is that, now that we’re here, the University will work with us as efficiently as possible to accomplish the work in front of us.
Our job at the bargaining table is to advocate for the interests of our members and to pursue solutions and agreements which respond to their priorities and perspectives. To help us effectively do that, we’ve been talking with and listening to our members. Our members — your employees — are tired and overwhelmed. They do not feel heard, acknowledged, valued or appreciated. At the same time our members earnestly invest in the Lab Schools with time, talent, commitment, and energy the University is divesting in the Lab Schools and our members.
We are pursuing a contract which adequately respects and values the work our members do with and for the students and families of the Lab Schools.
Our members work each day to provide individual attention to our students, and to create an educational environment which values equity, diversity, access and belonging. It’s difficult to bargain for appreciation and respect — so we do it through working conditions, compensation and benefits.
Despite the work our members do, they continue to be undercompensated compared to the regional market.
Historically, the “other benefits” of working in the Lab Schools have outweighed the compensation gap. As late as 2023, however, compensation has been identified as an area of growth for the entire University.
For more than two decades, the Lab Schools operated under a compensation framework that recognized the professional role of Faculty Associates in fulfilling the University’s mission of teacher preparation. While imperfect, it reflected an understanding that equity required sustained commitment.
In 2019, that commitment was reaffirmed. Superintendent Dr. Kinley commissioned a formal review to address longstanding inequities and adopted a modified reconciliation process to bring Faculty Associate salaries to a regionally competitive level. This updated a methodology in place for more than 25 years, originally initiated under Superintendent Dr. Robert Dean, and was collaborative — giving Faculty Associates a meaningful voice.
In FY21, Interim Director Dr. Barbara Meyer implemented the first iteration of the updated reconciliation process after securing approval at all required levels, including from the Interim President of the University. At that time, there was clear agreement among the parties that reconciliation would continue through deliberate adjustments until equity was achieved.
Though the circumstances stayed the same, leadership priorities and attitudes began to shift. Turnover at the Director, Dean, Provost, and Presidential levels led to a departure from prior commitments. In his first year as Interim Dean, Dr. McLoda reported to the Salary Study Committee growing resistance at the Provost and Presidential levels to continuing salary improvements. He further reported that reconciliation — a practice in place for over two decades and outlined in the Faculty Associate Handbook with an annual review process — was to be discontinued, citing comments from President Tarhule questioning the return on investment of increased Faculty Associate salaries.
Dr. McLoda acknowledged the need to improve salaries and the compounding effects of inversion and compression caused by the state-mandated minimum educator salary. He secured approval from the Provost and President for a revised approach: applying both a “step” increase and the minimum salary adjustment to Faculty Associates. While deviating from the original plan, it was implemented in August 2024 as a partial measure.
Rather than restoring trust, subsequent actions further eroded it. Over the following year, repeated attempts at transparent dialogue were met with resistance, as leadership meeting minutes reflected hesitation to adjust salaries due to the unrelated ISU Faculty negotiations. In April 2025, only after repeated requests to honor the Faculty Associate Handbook, the Salary Study Committee recommended simply repeating the 2024 approach again in 2025. This recommendation was denied on the grounds of “changing working conditions,” despite the fact it was the “status quo” at the time.
These dynamics are not limited to Faculty Associates. Many staff members essential to daily operations at the Lab Schools remain underpaid at rates significantly below others in the region. Several report promises of salary improvements tied to systemic change that never materialized, leaving them navigating bureaucratic processes while earning wages comparable to, or less than, those of high school students in part-time employment.
All of this occurred during a period of increased state investment. In FY25 and FY26, the Lab Schools received over $2 million in additional Evidence Based Funding compared to the FY24 level. Yet information from College Council and leadership meetings suggests a simultaneous effort to withdraw the University’s only direct financial investment — approximately $1.5 million in IBHE funds — citing the health and growth of the Lab School’s reserve fund. This rationale disregards long-standing documented evidence from ISU Vice President of Finance in 1995 recognizing these funds as a direct allocation in support of Faculty Associates’ role in the University’s mission of serving clinical students and preparing future educators. It further ignores that the growth in the reserve is directly connected to the stagnation in salaries and the desperate need for a significant reinvestment in employee compensation.
Taken together, this history reflects more than stalled progress. It reflects a pattern of commitments made, acknowledged, and set aside — leaving bargaining unit members with the perception that they are asked to sustain the University’s mission working with clinical students without the equity, investment, or professional respect that mission requires.
The Laboratory Schools were once called the “model school” when the University was founded. In some form or another, the Lab Schools have always been an integral part of Illinois State University.
Our units now reflect a modern expression of the promise that this University values excellence in teaching, learning and scholarship in the preparation of the next generation of teaching professionals for the state and the country — providing over 50,000 hours of clinical experiences each school year.
We want a contract that invests not only in the employees of the Lab Schools, but the students and families of the Lab Schools — and the future and sustainability of the Lab Schools.
Our members don’t only provide a top-tier education for our students, we also provide meaningful and measurable value to the University. Our members provide hours of individualized attention to future educators, mentoring and coaching those who come to Illinois State because of the world-class preparation they’ll receive.
Ultimately, improving the working conditions of our members is not a special interest; it is central to the success of the Lab Schools and University. Fair and stable conditions support the recruitment and retention of committed educators, create consistency and stability for students, and strengthen the quality of instruction delivered in the unique clinical setting the Lab Schools provide. When faculty and staff are treated with dignity and respect, the entire educational community benefits.
We commit to working with you at the bargaining table to address these concerns and to find solutions to these challenges.
We commit to coming prepared to our meetings, and to communicating with you as much as possible ahead of our meetings — including sharing proposals, documents and information.
We commit to being clear and direct, to operating with integrity, and to respecting the process and the people involved in it.
We are hopeful we can expect the same.
Leave a Reply