Labor Negotiations

Labor Negotiations

The links to the pages on the left column provide parents, community members, and employees with the latest information on negotiations with all our bargaining units.  Alameda Unified School District is committed to providing the public and its employees transparent access to information on the negotiations process. Please use the links on the left column of this page to view more information by bargaining unit.

---

 Latest News

 

AEA and District bargaining teams met on Friday, April 27th to bargain Article 8 and the calendar.

Before the meeting and during the meeting, AEA reiterated its position that AEA will not execute a tentative agreement on the calendar until the parties have tentatively agreed on all of Article 8.

Before the lunch break, the District asked clarifying questions about AEA’s Article 8 proposal. After the lunch break the District continued to ask clarifying questions about AEA’s Article 8 proposal, including questions about AEA’s proposals on calendar. When the District asked AEA to identify their interests in and reasons for their proposed calendar for 2013-2014, AEA did not offer any except to say that their proposal for a calendar for 2013-2014 was in support of the people on the Calendar Committee and in support of the Calendar Committee. AEA did not bring any members who served on the Calendar Committee to the meeting on April 27.

Response to AEA’s Article 8 Proposal and the District’s Article 8 Proposal
After the lunch break the District also offered its Response to AEA’s Article 8 Proposal and the District’s Article 8 Proposal. The District’s Response and Proposal explains the District’s objectives; responds thoroughly to AEA’s Article 8 proposal, including rationales for the Response and Proposal; identifies areas of common interest, areas where more information is needed and areas of disagreement; reiterates the District’s willingness to negotiate the 2012-2013 calendar separately and ahead of the rest of Article 8; accepts AEA’s proposed calendar for 2012-2013; offers alternatively to agree to a calendar for the months of August, September and October for the 2012-13 calendar; and makes an offer on all of Article 8.  

Calendar

The District’s Response and Proposal include the following main points:

• The District believes it is in the best interests of all stakeholders to separate the 2012-2013 school year calendar from the remainder of Article 8 without further delay.
• The District formally accepts AEA’s proposed calendar for 2012-13.
• Alternatively, the District requests that AEA agree to a calendar for the months of August, September and October so that our teachers, families and community are able to plan at least for the beginning months of the school year

 

AEA and District bargaining teams met on Friday, April 13th for approximately four and one-half hours to bargain any identified effects of Cyber High and a successor agreement. 

Cyber High
The District came prepared with a team to hear the effects of Cyber High as identified by AEA.  

Ground Rules

• AEA stated that it first wanted to negotiate ground rules for successor bargaining before discussing Cyber High causing a slight delay in bargaining.
• The District and AEA agreed to ten ground rules for bargaining which will be signed at the next meeting. In addition, the parties agreed to revisit ground rules as necessary.

Calendar

• The District reiterated its request that AEA negotiate and agree to the 2012/13 school year calendar separately from Article 8. AEA stated that the union would only agree to the calendar once the parties reached a tentative agreement on all articles under negotiation. 
• Subsequent to the negotiations session, AEA notified the District that it was changing its position that it would only agree to the calendar as part of an agreement on the entire successor contract. Instead, the union stated that although it would not separate the calendar from Article 8, it will separate Article 8 from the contract. In other words, AEA will not execute a tentative agreement on the calendar until the parties have tentatively agreed on all of Article 8. 
• On February 27, the District proposed three different calendar to AEA for 2012/13 and offered to accept any one of the three selected by AEA. One of the calendars proposed by the District is the same as the calendar AEA included in its proposal to the District. That calendar can be viewed here. 

Article 8 (Site Time) 

The District and the Association discussed AEA’s proposal regarding Article 8 (Site Time). AEA’s proposal on Article 8 can be viewed here. 

Next Steps

• The parties agreed to meet on the following dates: April 27; May 7; May 14; May 21; June 1; June 5; and June 11. 
• The parties agreed on a tentative agenda for the next 2 negotiations sessions. 
• AEA passed, but the parties did not discuss, AEA’s proposals on Article 20: Discipline; Article 14: Salaries; Article 11: Evaluation.

 

April 12, 2012: Alameda Unified School District Requests Factfinding to Resolve Impasse in Re-Opener Negotiations

On April 12, the District requested factfinding to resolve the impasse in re-opener negotiations with the AEA.  The District remains willing to discuss and consider settlement to avoid the need for factfinding while the factfinding process is underway.

 

April 3, 2012: Superintendent’s Letter Regarding the Tentative Agreement with AEA

On April 3, the Superintendent shared with the community the following letter regarding the tentative agreement with AEA. Click here for the letter.

 

March 30, 2012: Tentative Agreement between Alameda Unified School District and
Alameda Education Association not approved.

On March 30, the Alameda Education Association reported that their membership had not approved the tentative agreement.  The tentative agreement is here

 

March 22, 2012: On March 22 negotiating teams representing the District and the Alameda Education Association (AEA) reached a tentative agreement.

The tentative agreement came after four sessions with an outside mediator that began on March 7, continued on March 15, and concluded with mediation sessions this week on March 21 and 22. The last three mediation sessions on March 15, 21 and 22 all extended past midnight.

The District’s understanding is that AEA intends to share the terms of the tentative agreement and vote with its members during the week of March 26.

 

---

 

Latest FAQs

I understand that in late March the teachers' union (AEA) voted against the Tentative Agreement (TA) that had been negotiated and signed by representatives of the District, AEA, and the California Teachers Association (CTA), the statewide teachers' union. I have heard a lot of different opinions about the TA. Even though I have read the terms of the TA, I am finding it difficult to put the provisions of the TA in context. How does the TA compare to the existing contract?

Here are six main points that we hope help place the TA in context.

(1) The TA offered the best compensation package the District could afford at the time of the Agreement. Because of Measure A, the District is fortunate to be able to offer a full instructional and teacher work year despite the state budget crisis. The Governor's upcoming May Revise budget numbers are likely to show that things are now looking financially worse for all of us than they looked in January, not better. No one can predict with certainty what will happen with the proposed state tax initiatives on the ballot in November. If those initiatives fail, things are likely to get significantly worse. For this reason, the TA tied on-going compensation increases to state revenue.

(2) The TA was a compromise package after several hours of mediated negotiations. It involved some items AEA wanted and some that the District wanted. The compromises in the TA reflected the view that we cannot make "the perfect the enemy of the good." The District understands that if it were to take the position that only a perfect deal will be approved, that would probably mean it will be a long time before we can resolve negotiations.

(3) The TA allowed each side to reopen salary, benefits and up to three additional articles (i.e. five articles) less than eight months from now in December, following the expected November votes on the state tax initiatives. In other words, this was a temporary arrangement that either party could seek to revise once we all have a better sense of the State budget after the November vote on the state tax initiatives.

(4) The District values teachers as professionals and supported the TA because of the many ways in which it recognized teachers as respected professionals, including a new article on academic freedom, greater limits on anonymous complaints against teachers than exist in the current contract, a one-year pilot to extend professional collaboration as a means to greater professional development and better outcomes for students, and a provision allowing AEA to choose the calendar for the next two years from a list of three calendars for each year that align with earlier discussions of possible calendars, including the identical calendars AEA included in their proposals on Article 8 that are posted as public records on our website.

(5) The TA provided an ongoing raise for teachers, but also recognized the reality that compensation in AUSD must be connected to events at the state level, just as the District's revenues are connected to events at the state level. The TA guaranteed increased compensation for at least two years whether or not the State makes further cuts. In the event District does receive less state funding in 2012-2013, the increase in 12-13 would convert to a one-time payment. The TA did not include the possibility of furloughs or pay cuts, even in the worst case scenario of additional reductions in state revenue.

(6) Negotiations leading to the TA took over a year before there was an agreement. The final agreement came only after more than 50 hours of very intense, marathon, late-night negotiations with an outside mediator. Although the pace of negotiations can always speed up or slow down, the fact that even the final mediation (when both sides were strongly motivated to reach an agreement and were being assisted by an experienced mediator) took so much time suggests that reaching a new, different TA may take considerable time.

We will continue to move forward positively and respectfully with negotiations, always striving to compromise and reach agreement.

For any interested in a broader overview of the TA, the Superintendent's letter dated April 3 is the best source of information. That letter is posted here.

 

I have heard a lot of claims about what was included in the Tentative Agreement (TA) that was negotiated and signed by representatives of the District, AEA, and the California Teachers Association (CTA), the statewide teachers' union, but later not approved by AEA. Can you provide factual clarifications on a few provisions of the TA, on the specific issues raised in questions (a) – (f) below?

(a) I heard that with the collaboration pilot in the TA students would lose 45 minutes of instructional time each week, teachers might not have sufficient involvement in determining topics to be discussed during collaboration, and parents would be required to bring students to school 45 minutes later or pick them up 45 minutes earlier. Is that correct?

The TA established a one year collaboration pilot program to have each school site choose a bell schedule that would allow time within the school day every week or two for teachers to collaborate professionally.

Many but not all of our schools already have such schedules in place and have successfully implemented collaboration schedules that work well for schools and families.

"Collaboration" is broadly defined in the TA as time for school site staff to meet and exchange ideas and information in an effort to meet the individual needs of students and improve instruction for all students. Principals and teachers would work together at each school site to decide how collaboration should work best, just as is done at the many schools in AUSD where this already exists.

Teachers at each site would choose to structure this time in a variety of ways, including by extending the school day slightly or reducing snack breaks slightly. Schedules would not be permitted to reduce instructional minutes below what the State requires.

For our school sites that did not already have collaboration schedules in place, each would have decided on the best schedule for this one year pilot program based on the specific choice of the teachers at each school site.

Ordinarily, teachers work and are paid for 185 work days per year. For this one year collaboration pilot program in 2012-13, teachers would have been paid for 185 days but would only have been required to work 184 days. In addition, teachers would have had an expanded opportunity to use sick leave for "personal necessity" reasons.

(b) I believe that small classes are better for students. What does the TA say about class size?

The TA maintained K-3 class size maximums at 25 students. To see how this compares to other Bay Area schools, visit the District’s Labor Negotiations website and view the comparison chart.The TA also lowered high school class size maximums by one.

There are several reasons the TA did not return K-3 class size maximums to 20:1, where they were before 2010.

(1) Measure A Provides Funds to Support K-3 Class Sizes of 25:1, not 20:1

The only way that the District can maintain small K-3 classes at their current level of 25 to 1 is through the use of Measure A funds. Measure A specifically allocates 13-14% of its revenues to "maintaining manageable elementary class sizes with student to teacher ratios no greater than 25 to 1 in K-3 classrooms." To reduce K-3 class sizes even further to 20 to 1, the District would need to make additional on-going budget reductions.

(2) Staffing K-3 Classes at 20:1 Would Cost an Additional $897,023 Annually under Current Budget Assumptions

Our updated financial analysis shows that reducing class size maximums below 25 in K-3 would cost approximately $897,023 per year in additional ongoing expenses.

(3) The State May Eliminate Class Size Reduction (CSR) Funding

The long term prospect of class size reduction funding is uncertain. In January, the Governor proposed the complete elimination of the CSR program as part of a comprehensive overhaul of state education funding. There is a possibility that class size reduction funding will be eliminated or that the rules will be dramatically altered. Without state funding, it will be very difficult to maintain 25 to 1, much less 20 to 1.

(4) Reverting from 25:1 to 20:1 Would Require Many Students to be Diverted from Their Neighborhood Schools

Restructuring K-3 class sizes from 25:1 to 20:1 would be extremely disruptive to elementary families and staff district-wide. Our current estimates indicate that approximately 181 K-3 students would have to be diverted from their current neighborhood elementary schools in order to reduce class sizes from 25 to 20. At many school sites, facilities limitations make it physically impossible to add the extra classrooms that would be needed to keep all students currently enrolled at each school at those same schools while also reducing all K-3 classes to 20 or lower. As a result, diversions of large numbers of students from their neighborhood schools would be unavoidable if we reverted to 20:1 in K-3 classes.

Until the District could hold lotteries for each school site to determine which particular students would be able to stay at their neighborhood schools and which would be among the approximately 181 who would be diverted, the number of families at risk of diversion and subject to uncertainty would be many times greater than 181.

In light of the uncertainty at the state level around CSR specifically and the state budget more generally, just as in the current contract, the TA included contingency language to address any necessary changes to class size maximums resulting from a fiscal crisis. In the event of such a severe fiscal emergency, the Board would be required to hold a noticed public meeting about any such changes.

(c) The TA reforms the process for complaints against teachers. Doesn't a teacher have the right to know the full details behind any complaint made about him/her and a chance to explain the situation following the guidelines of the process?

Under the current contract all complaints (anonymous or not, significant or not) go through the complaint process. The TA gave teachers more protection than the current contract by limiting which complaints will go through the process: If a complaint were anonymous and not significant, the TA provided that it would not go through the complaint process. The current contract requires that it do so.

(d) Does the TA take away teachers' input and their right to help determine the learning schedule?

The agreement allowed AEA members to select school calendars of their choosing for the next two school years from among three choices. The three choices include the identical calendars AEA included in their proposals on Article 8 that are posted as public records on our website and that AEA also posted on Alameda Patch on February 9 as their proposed calendars for the next two years.

In addition, the agreement established a process for calendars to be negotiated for future years, including a default calendar in the event that no agreement on a calendar is possible through negotiations. The default calendar was itself a compromise calendar that resulted from negotiations, not the first choice calendar of the District or AEA.

The current status of calendar negotiations can be seen under "Latest News" on the Labor Negotiations page of the District website. FYI, here is a passage from an FAQ also posted on our website about negotiations on the calendar before we went to the meditation that led to the TA: "During negotiations on February 2 and again on February 27, AEA informed the District that it will only negotiate the calendar for the 2012-2013 school year as part of Article 8. On February 27, the District discussed the urgent need to agree upon a calendar for the 2012-2013 school year and offered to negotiate three alternative calendars for the next two school years. AEA declined to receive or discuss the District's proposals on calendar until the District prepared and passed a full proposal on Article 8."

The District's explanation of why it is urgent that we resolve the calendar for the 2012-13 school year and the District's offer to negotiate the calendar (recall that what is in the District's proposal for the 2012-13 calendar matches exactly with the 2012-13 calendar AEA has proposed and posted on Alameda Patch) are posted in this document on our website here.

(e) I have heard some opinions that the compensation offered in the TA is inadequate. How does that compensation fit with what is happening with the state budget in Sacramento and the November vote on the state tax initiatives?

The TA provided an ongoing raise but also recognized the reality that compensation in AUSD must be connected to events at the state level, just as the District's revenues are connected to events at the state level. Even in the worst case scenario where the State makes further cuts to our funding in 2012-13, the TA guaranteed some increased compensation for at least two years (i.e., in the worst case scenario the 1.5% increase would convert to a one-time payment if the State were to cut our funding). The TA included no furloughs and no pay cuts, even in the worst case scenario of additional state cuts in our funding.

More specifically, the agreement provided a 1% one-time payment to teachers for the current school year and a 1.5% raise of ongoing increased compensation beginning next school year.

If the State cuts funding to the District, the 1.5% raise would have converted to a one-time payment for 2012-13. The agreement defined the conditions for this specifically in terms of whether the funded BRL/ADA the State gives the District is reduced below $5,226.64. This contingency was negotiated and agreed upon based on the common understanding that it is not currently possible to accurately estimate the amount of State funding AUSD will receive for 2012-13. For example, if the proposed state tax initiatives do not pass in November, current projections show that AUSD will lose significant revenue and face significant cuts in coming years.

The TA specifically permitted negotiations over salary and benefits to be reopened in December.

(f) Is it true that the Superintendent received an approximately $1Million contract, while Alameda's teachers lost 4.5% of their pay last year and are paid nearly the lowest in the County?

The Superintendent and every other employee in AUSD took eight furlough days last school year. In 2010-11, students missed five days of school because the school year was shortened by a week. Due to their eight furlough days in 2010-11, teachers worked eight fewer days and were paid for eight fewer days than usual last year.

With the passage of Measure A, those five school days that students and staff missed last year have been restored so that we again have a full school year for students. This year there are no furlough days. The pay that teachers lost last year due to furloughs has been restored this year.

In addition, this year, a majority of teachers also received a step and column increase in salary of 2-3%. The 1% one-time payment for teachers this year and the 1.5% increase for next year provided by the TA would have been in addition to any step and column increases.

The Superintendent's four-year contract approved last August provided for a 3% step increase, just as has been the case in Superintendent's contracts in AUSD for at least the past ten years. The Superintendent's compensation remains below the County average to approximately the same degree as the compensation for teachers, staff and other administrators is also below the County average.

 

Click here for all Labor Negotiations FAQs