1. Transfer and Reassignment: a focus on In-Building Reassignment
As defined by the Elgin Agreement
This presentation is to help you understand the Transfer/reassignment process within the Elgin Agreement and specifically addresses the changes resulting from the incorporation of SB7 requirements.
Elgin Agreement

2. 12.5 REASSIGNMENT A reassignment shall be defined as a change in grade level and/or subject area assignments.
Excerpt…
When a reassignment is necessary due to a reduction in the number of teachers at a grade level and/or subject area, all volunteers shall be considered first.
In the absence of volunteers who are selected under (a) above:
Teachers will be reassigned in the order as identified in Seniority by Area, except where a higher ranking teacher among the statutory groupings possesses demonstrable qualifications which may allow for his/her reassignment.
If a teacher has an assignment in more than one grade level/department, the teacher is considered to be in both grade levels/departments. For example, an elementary teacher who teaches a 2/3 split is considered to be in both grades 2 and 3 presuming they are qualified to hold each position. If the 2/3 split is eliminated, the affected teacher is considered to be in both grade levels and can exercise his/her choice to remain at either grade level if he/she has more seniority than the other equally qualified teachers at the second and third grades.
This language is excerpted directly from the Elgin Agreement.
A couple of elements worth pointing out are as follows:
Straight seniority historically determined the ordering of teachers for assignment purposes but it has been updated to reflect statutory groupings requirement.
Teachers occupying a split position are considered to be holding a position in each grade level.
Elgin Agreement

3. 12.6 TRANSFERS A transfer shall be defined as a change from one building to another.
12.63 Transfer/Reassignment Criteria The selection of a candidate to fill a vacancy shall be based upon the background, professional qualifications, mutual agreement of the teacher and administration, opportunity for professional growth and experience.
The foundation of the T/R process is one of mutual agreement. As often is as feasible teachers change assignments with the mutual agreement of their administrator. In short administration cannot unilaterally reassign teachers nor can teachers simply select a position.
Elgin Agreement

4. 12.9 SPECIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENTS
For the purpose of Article XII, special services (LD/BD/EMH, early childhood, music, art, social work, PE, etc.) will be considered district-wide buildings.
A reassignment in the Special Services Departments is defined as a change in a position within a building within the Special Services Departments.
A transfer in the Special Services Departments is defined as a change from one building to another within the department.
Not all buildings are created equally. In fact some buildings are not constructed out of bricks at all. Article 12 Section 9 addresses how this definition impacts the reassignment and transfer steps in the process.
Elgin Agreement

5. Pre-2013 Example ½:3 2:8 Understanding the icons of old…
1 : 10
1st Grade Teacher: 10 years of seniority
½:3
1st /2nd Split Teacher: 3 years of seniority
2:8
Now we’ll work through a couple of examples using the rules as they were prior to 2013.
To help you follow we’ll use “poker chips” to represent each teacher. Here are three examples of typically situated teachers at an elementary school.
2nd Grade Teacher: 8 years of seniority
Pre-2013 Example
Elgin Agreement

6. Reduction: 1 FTE at 2nd Pre-2013 Example 1st Grade 1st /2nd Split
2nd Grade
1: 10
½:3
2:8
Reduction:
1 FTE at 2nd
1: 8
½:2
This year
2:6
1: 6
2:4
1: 10
2:4
2:8
Next year
½:3
1: 8
2:6
During IBR, this reduction in FTE only affects 2nd Grade and potentially the 1st/2nd split.
TWA individuals are still assigned to the building and will remain so unless they change sites through transfer – either voluntary or involuntary.
They remain attached in the event that an opening is created at the site for which they are qualified at which time they will be placed into the position during IBR2 to avoid having to go through IVT.
If there are no open positions available at the site for which they are qualified then bumping will occur with the least senior teacher at the site holding a position for which the TWA teacher is qualified will be bumped. The bumped teacher remains attached to the building until IVT is complete.
1: 6
½:2
TWA
Pre-2013 Example
Elgin Agreement

7. Reductions: 1 FTE at Split Pre-2013 Example 1st Grade 1st /2nd Split
2nd Grade
1: 10
½:7
2:8
Reductions:
1 FTE at Split
1: 8
½:5
This year
2:6
1: 6
2:4
1: 10
½:7
2:8
Next year
1: 8
2:6
This example has the reduction at the ½ split. Remember, the teachers occupying split positions are actually in each grade level. As we slot teachers into positions for the coming year, in this scenario, the impacted teacher at the split only has one option, 2nd grade, as her seniority is less than that of all the teachers in the 1st grade.
1: 6
½:5
2:4
TWA
Pre-2013 Example
Elgin Agreement

8. Reductions: 2 FTE at Split Pre-2013 Example 1st Grade 1st /2nd Split
2nd Grade
1: 10
½:7
2:8
1: 10
1: 8
½:5
This year
2:6.5
1: 8
1: 6.3
2:4
Updated seniority!
2:8
Pre-2013 Example
½:7
1: 10
2:8
Next year
2:6.5
1: 8
½:7
In this scenario we’re going from 8 FTE down to 6 FTE. It’s similar because the members in the ½ Split have rights in both 1st and 2nd grades in the building.
I’ve arranged the chips by seniority and the process is to work down the stack placing teachers back into their grade level when possible. In this run through the 7yr teacher in the split mutually agrees with the administrator to take a 2nd grade position for the coming year.
Take note of which two teachers are identified as TWA. Is this the only possible outcome?
1: 6.3
1: 6.3
2:6.5
½:5
2:4
½:5
2:4
TWA
Elgin Agreement

9. Reductions: 2 FTE at Split Pre-2013 Example 1st Grade 1st /2nd Split
2nd Grade
1: 10
½:7
2:8
1: 10
1: 8
½:5
This year
2:6.5
1: 8
1: 6.3
2:4
2:8
Pre-2013 Example
½:7
1: 10
2:8
Next year
2:6.5
1: 8
2:6.5
This slide has the exact same setup as the prior slide.
So why run through it? Well, if the teacher and administrator mutually agree to a 1st grade position instead of the 2nd grade position the outcome is different.
Note that the TWA first grade teacher has greater seniority, and therefore ultimately bumping rights, over the last teacher placed in 2nd grade. After voluntary transfer during the reduction-in-building step the TWA 1st grade teacher will BUMP the last assigned 2nd grade teacher if no other openings have been created at the physical building during voluntary transfer and there isn’t a less senior staff member at the site in a position the TWA is qualified to teach. It’s important to remember that this is only a narrow slice of the building and all of these movements can only occur when staff are qualified to hold the positions.
This is a prime example of why a site should not try to predict the outcome but rather work through the process one step at a time.
1: 6.3
½:7
½:5
½:5
1: 6.3
2:4
2:4
TWA
Elgin Agreement

10. 2013 and moving forward ½:3-3 2:4-8 Understanding the icons…
1 : 3-10
1st Grade Teacher: Group years of seniority
½:3-3
1st /2nd Split Teacher: Group years of seniority
2:4-8
So in compliance with SB7, PERA, and The Elgin Agreement the chips would ‘simply’ be updated to reflect their position, Grouping, and ‘seniority’.
2nd Grade Teacher: Group years of seniority
2013 and moving forward
Elgin Agreement

11. Reduction: 1 FTE at 2nd 2013 onward 1st Grade 1st /2nd Split 2nd Grade
1: 3-10
½:3-3
2:3-8
Reduction:
1 FTE at 2nd
1: 3-8
½:3-2
This year
2:3-6
1: 3-6
2:3-4
1: 3-10
2:3-4
2:3-8
Next year
½:3-3
1: 3-8
2:3-6
Same scenario as first example but with updated labeling. End result, same outcome. This is the case because all of the teachers in this example are in the same grouping.
1: 3-6
½:3-2
TWA
2013 onward
Elgin Agreement

12. Reduction: 1 FTE at 1st 1 FTE at 2nd 2013 onward 1st Grade
1st /2nd Split
2nd Grade
1: 4-2
½:3-3
2:4-4
1: 3-9
½:3-2
2:3-8
This year
½:3-2
½:3-3
2:3-6
2:3-8
1: 3-8
1: 3-9
1: 4-2
2:4-4
1: 3-8
2:3-6
1: 4-2
1: 3-8
2:4-4
Next year
1: 3-9
2:3-6
2:3-8
What if the teachers are not all in the same grouping? Seemingly infinite outcomes. Okay, not infinite but certainly not as predictable because teachers do not have access to other teachers’ statutory grouping and groupings for some teachers may change from year to year.
The chips in this model are stacked from top to bottom in order of statutory grouping – from highest to lowest.
The outcome has the teachers occupying the splits ending up as TWA.
What if the 2:3-6 (the third purple chip) was actually in group 4? Then that teacher would have stayed in 2nd and the 8th year group 3 2nd grade teacher (2:3-8) would have landed up in a 1st/2nd split.
½:3-3
½:3-2
TWA
2013 onward
Elgin Agreement

13. If you have questions regarding implementation of the Elgin Agreement as it pertains to Transfer and Reassignment please don’t hesitate to contact the Elgin Teachers Association at
We hope that this presentation has helped clarify this step of the transfer/reassignment process. Further guidance on the remaining steps of the process can be found in the Elgin Agreement Article 12 or in the MOU Title I, Flowchart
Elgin Agreement