HOME Labor Negotiations
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
Alameda Unified School District and Teachers’ Union Head to Fact-Finding
The District met with AEA on January 30 to resume mediation with an impartial mediator. After meeting with the parties for approximately 4 hours, the mediator concluded the mediation and stated that he will be certifying the parties to the next stage of the impasse process: fact-finding. Although the parties' relative positions and offers during mediation are confidential, the District participated in mediation in good faith, and attempted to meet AEA's interests with a different proposal. Unfortunately, the union and the District were unable to reach an agreement on Class Size in mediation and will now begin the fact-finding process.
In fact-finding, each party will have an opportunity to present the facts which support their respective positions. The fact-finding panel will consider several factors including comparable class sizes in neighboring similar districts. The District will continue to work with AEA through the fact-finding process to try to reach a negotiated agreement. For more information about the fact-finding process, please see FAQ’s #19-21 below.
Latest FAQs
Will there be Open House at AUSD Schools in 2012?
No. On February 8, the District notified parents that Open House is cancelled for this school year.
Here is a timeline of events leading up to this decision.
- On March 2, 2010 AUSD and AEA signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) stating that if a new parcel tax did not pass by November 30, 2010, changes to certain portions of the AUSD-AEA contract would be triggered for the 2011-12 school year. Since Measure E failed to get two-thirds of the vote in June 2010 and since Measure A did not pass until March 2011 (i.e., after the “trigger” date of November 30, 2010), the “trigger” in the MOU was pulled. The triggered changes for the 2011-12 school year provided for in the MOU included seven days of furloughs, increases of K-3 class sizes to 32, the cancellation of Open House and a reduction in the number of faculty meetings, among other things.
- After the passage of Measure A in March 2011, the District offered not to impose any of the seven days of furloughs or K-3 class size increases for 11-12 that were permitted by the MOU, offered to restore all three paid professional development days, and asked AEA for the return of Open House and staff meetings for 11-12. The District’s proposal to restore the work year and Open House was made on June 2, 2011 and is posted here.
- After that offer was not accepted by AEA, the District decided not to impose the furloughs or K-3 class size increases for 11-12 permitted by the MOU, even without an agreement on returning Open House. Accordingly, in adopting the 11-12 budget in June 2011, the District restored five instructional days that had been cut for 10-11, funded three full days of paid professional development for teachers that had been cut in 10-11, and funded two teacher work days that were permitted to be cut under the “trigger” terms of the MOU.
- In the Fall of 2011, the District informed AEA leadership and principals that Open House would be scheduled as a voluntary event for the spring of 2012. The District made clear that teachers would not be required to prepare for or attend the voluntary Open House.
- In a letter dated October 12, 2011, AEA stated its opposition to the scheduling of Open House as a voluntary event and alleged that scheduling Open House “constitutes an unfair labor practice . . . Accordingly, the Alameda Education Association hereby demands that the District immediately cancel open house as agreed by both parties. If we do not hear from you within five school days, we will be forced to pursue all available legal remedies.”
- On October 12, 2011, AEA also filed a grievance stating that the District violated the MOU “when they directed principals to schedule Open House.”
- In a memorandum dated October 27, 2011, the District responded to the grievance and reiterated that "the District is not requiring teachers to participate in Open House. Teacher participation is voluntary. All administrators were to have made this clear to staff. Teachers will not be disciplined for failing to attend or prepare for the evening visit of parents and families."
- On November 1, AEA notified the District that it was submitting its grievance over Open House to arbitration.
- On February 7, the District agreed to AEA’s demand that Open House be formally cancelled.
- On February 8, the District notified parents of the cancellation. We encourage parents and community members to take advantage of the many other opportunities to visit their neighborhood schools this spring with other traditional events and we look forward to the return of Open House for the 2012-2013 school year.
Note: This FAQ was updated on 2.15.12 after AEA brought to the District's attention that it does not believe it received the District's Response to AEA's demand that it cease and desist scheduling a voluntary Open House. Although District records reflect that the letter was sent and staff is certain the letter was mailed and scanned to AEA, the District has removed the reference to the letter.
What is the status of the proposals for magnet schools or innovative programs?
Does anything have to happen in negotiations for those to move ahead? At its meeting on January 24, the Board approved several proposals for magnet schools and innovative programs that had been submitted by teams of teachers, parents and administrators and then reviewed with the Board and the community in earlier meetings in recent weeks. The programs provide new professional opportunities for teachers and staff and expand academic choices for students across the District, as contemplated by the AUSD Master Plan.
Thanks to the sustained hard work of many teachers, staff, administrators, parents, and community members, as well as the passage of Measure A -- which provided critical funding for the planning stages for these magnet and innovative programs -- the Board was able to approve these proposals to provide more programs of choice in AUSD.
The Board's approval of these proposals is subject to several conditions all of which must be met in coming months for these to launch as planned. Contract waivers are a condition for all of the magnet and innovative programs. Staff has already begun working with AEA to secure these contract waivers and we are hopeful that the union will support these programs by waiving the necessary contract provisions. AUSD and AEA have already agreed in principle that these waivers will be for 3 years to allow sufficient time for the new programs to start up, get running and stabilize.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What is currently being negotiated between the District and the union?
2. Isn’t there a current contract in effect between the District and the union?
3. Why are the parties only negotiating one contract article instead of a complete contract?
4. What contract articles did the District reopen?
5. What contract articles did the union reopen?
7. Why can’t the District staff K-3 classes at a ratio of 20 students to 1 teacher?
10. The union asked the Board to use carry-over funds on teachers, why did the District refuse?
11. What are K-3 class sizes in other districts?
12. Is it true that the District is spending $1 Million in carry-over funds on textbooks?
14. Is it true that the District hasn’t offered a counter-proposal to AEA?
15. Are the District and the teachers’ Union at impasse under state collective bargaining law?
16. What does it mean to be at impasse in negotiations?
17. What is the next step now that the District and Union are at impasse?
18. What if the parties don’t reach agreement in mediation?
19. How does fact-finding work?
20. What is involved in the fact-finding hearing?
21. Is the fact-finder’s recommendation binding on the parties?
22. Can the District just impose its last, best and final offer if fact-finding doesn’t work?
24. Where can I find the most recent budget numbers for AUSD?
25. How much funding has California cut from the average School District since 2007-2008?
27. How is AUSD's budget impacted by the State budget?
29. Where do things stand in negotiations between the District and the teachers' union?
32. Is it true that the district has refused to negotiate any proposals with AEA for 14 months?
1. What is currently being negotiated between the District and the union?
The contract between the District and the teachers contains 29 separate parts, or articles. Until November 7, the only issue under negotiation was the part of the contract dealing with class size, Article 9. Article 9 sets the maximum numbers for class size at elementary and secondary levels.
On November 7, the union proposed to open salary and benefits for the first time during this bargaining cycle which began nearly 11 months ago. The union’s proposal included a 3% annual salary increase for all teachers every year for the next three school years and fully paid medical benefits for all teachers. In exchange, the union offered to agree to K-3 class sizes of 25:1 in a temporary agreement. Preliminary fiscal analysis estimates that the increased cost of this proposal over the three year period is $4.1 million in salary and a minimum of $19.2 million in medical benefits. The District rejected this proposal as it would require the District to pay millions of dollars in salary and benefits that the District cannot afford. Updated: 11.15.11
2. Isn’t there a current contract in effect between the District and the union?
Yes, the current contract remains in effect until June 2012. In March 2010, recognizing the unprecedented cuts that the state was making to K-12 education funding, the parties agreed to a temporary modification of certain contract terms through a Memorandum of Understanding, or MOU.
3. Why are the parties only negotiating one contract article instead of a complete contract?
When the District and the teachers’ union agreed to the MOU, the parties agreed to meet and negotiate (or “reopen”) up to 3 contract articles in the event that the District was not able to secure additional local funding through a parcel tax on or before November 30, 2010. As most in the Alameda community recall, the District’s June 2010 effort to pass a parcel tax – Measure E – was unsuccessful. As a result of the failure to pass a parcel tax by November 30, 2010, the trigger to reopen up to 3 articles was set in motion.
4. What contract articles did the District reopen?
Initially, in the winter of 2010-2011, the District sought to reopen and negotiate Class Size (Article 9) and Transfer (Article 10). However, the parties mutually agreed to withdraw proposals on Article 10 earlier this school year. Thus, the only remaining article under negotiation is Article 9, Class Size.
5. What contract articles did the union reopen?
The union did not reopen any articles for negotiation until November 7 when it sought to reopen salary (Article 14) and benefits (Article 12). Updated 11.15.11
6. Why is the District negotiating class size now instead of later this year when the parties are set to negotiate a full successor contract?
The MOU entered into between the teachers and the District in March 2010 enabled the District to raise class sizes in order to reduce costs and balance the budget in the face of millions of dollars of lost revenue due to state cuts in education funding. Because Measure A revenue is allocated to smaller class sizes, the District has been able to keep K-3 classes under 25 students, and in many classes, even lower.
However, once the MOU expires in June 2012, under state labor law, if Article 9 is not renegotiated to align with the provisions of Measure A to staff K-3 classes at 25 to 1, the District is required to revert to the previous contract language on class size. The union believes this language requires K-3 class size to be under 20.
7. Why can’t the District staff K-3 classes at a ratio of 20 students to 1 teacher?
California’s fiscal crisis and political gridlock of recent years continues. Indications are increasing that the State will impose “trigger cuts” in the middle of this school year (cuts built into this year's state budget that will take place automatically if revenue falls short of projections from last spring) that will result in the loss of millions of dollars of revenue for AUSD. Although conservative budgeting through the use of contingency plans and reserves will enable us to offset those “trigger cuts,” the District cannot afford to incur additional expenses by reducing class sizes further.
The only way that the District can maintain small K-3 classes at 25 to 1 is through the use of Measure A funds. To reduce class sizes to 20, the District would need to make additional on-going budget reductions that it cannot afford to make and still protect the core programs that our community so highly values.
Reducing class size below 25 in K-3 would cost approximately one-half Million dollars per year. In addition, restructuring class sizes from 25 to 20 would be extremely disruptive to elementary families district-wide. Preliminary estimates indicate that approximately 175 K-3 students would be diverted from their current neighborhood elementary schools in order to reduce class sizes from 25 to 20.
Long term, it is unrealistic to expect that the State will continue to fund class size reduction as it has in the past. Most experts believe that class size reduction funding will be eliminated or that the rules will be dramatically altered in future K-12 state budgets. Without state funding, it will be difficult to maintain 25 to 1, much less 20 to 1.
The District believes that by maintaining its fiscally conservative approach to spending and budgeting, we can keep class sizes at 25 to 1, minimize the disruption to elementary students and families, and ensure continuity of elementary staffing and programs.
8. If state funding won’t support 20:1 in K-3, why doesn’t the District use Measure A funds to reduce class sizes in K-3 below 25?
Revenue raised by Measure A may only be used only for specific programs. In passing Measure A, the Alameda community voted to use 13-14% of the revenue to maintain classes at 25:1. It is important to remember that, unlike previous school parcel taxes, Measure A was the product of months of community engagement. Ultimately, the community voted to support only those programs which it collectively identified as being the most important programs to protect in the face of dramatic reductions in state funding.
In order to allocate additional Measure A funds to pay for 20:1, the Board of Education would have to reallocate Measure A revenue from another Measure A program to hire additional teachers. In addition to small class sizes for K-3, Measure A funds neighborhood elementary schools; programs to close the achievement gap; high school athletics; teacher salaries; enrichment programs; counseling and support services; charter schools; technology and adult education. One or more of these programs would need to be significantly reduced or eliminated in order to reduce class sizes to 20. Measure A was intended to protect the core values identified by the Alameda community; it was not intended to reverse all budget cuts.
9. I heard the District has carry-over funds that it didn’t spend last year – why can’t this money be used to reduce class sizes from 25 to 20?
Last year, as a result of tightening our belt and reducing expenditures wherever possible, the District was able to save categorical funds to mitigate cuts to programs that would have to occur if the parcel tax didn’t pass. For example, over half of these funds are the result of the District foregoing badly needed text book purchases. These funds are traditionally referred to as “carryover” funds. These dollars represent one-time savings of program funds.
It would be fiscally irresponsible to use one-time savings to pay for on-going expenses, such as permanent changes to class size. Even if the District were to use one-time savings to pay for lower class sizes for one year, we know from the District’s multi-year budget projections that the District would not be able to maintain lower class sizes for the subsequent years. As a result, children and families across the District would be diverted from their neighborhood schools and experience significant disruption for the benefit of one year with a marginally smaller class size.
10. Did the union ask the Board to use carryover funds on teachers?
No. At the bargaining table on November 7, the teachers’ union made a proposal which included on-going increases in salary and benefit contributions totaling at least $7.7 million in on-going annual costs. This was not a proposal to use one-time carryover funds and the union did not characterize it as such. Updated 11.15.11
11. What are K-3 class sizes in other districts?
The increasingly worse state budget crisis has forced school districts across California to increase class sizes exponentially in the last few years. For example, here in the Bay Area, most districts have ratios of 25:1 or higher, with many at 28, 29 or greater. For a more comprehensive look at class sizes in the Bay Area, click here. The fact that Measure A allocates funds to keep classes at no more than 25 in K-3 is what keeps AUSD K-3 classes among the smallest in the East Bay.
12. Is it true that the District is spending $1 Million in carry-over funds on textbooks?
No. The District is using approximately $588,000 of carry-over savings to purchase textbooks, consumables (i.e. workbooks) and other educational materials. This amount represents less than 10% of the total investment in textbooks District-wide. The textbooks being purchased with carry-over funds are necessary because Alameda students have not received the benefit of new textbook purchases in over 1 ½ years due to the fiscal crisis.
To view a detailed explanation of the use of carryover funds, visit the website and review agenda item E-15 from the October 25 meeting of the Board of Education, click here.
13. I thought Measure A money was supposed to “attract and retain excellent teachers.” Why isn’t the District using this money to give teachers a raise or a bonus?
Over 74% of Measure A funds are devoted to teachers. Over $3 million in revenue from Measure A is budgeted directly for teacher salaries – this amount is in lieu of a reduction in salaries, or a salary roll back, which would have been necessary had Measure A not passed. In addition, over $1 million in funds go directly toward the restoration of 5 instructional days for teachers – days that would have been eliminated for teachers and students if Measure A had not passed. Also, more than $4 million is allocated to fund teacher positions that would have been cut without Measure A: K-3 and AP teachers; elementary music, PE and media center teachers; secondary fine arts teachers; and high school counselors. Click here to view the many ways Measure A provides funding directly to teachers
Teaching children is the core function of a school district and our excellent teachers and staff are the primary reason we have such successful schools. For this reason, it is no surprise that the vast majority of funds raised by Measure A goes directly to teachers. However, Measure A was never intended to provide teachers a bonus or salary increase.
14. Is it true that the District hasn’t offered a counter-proposal to AEA?
No. The District made a counteroffer which can be viewed here.
The District has made two proposals on class size, including a counter offer on November 7. In addition, late last spring, the District offered to fully restore the teachers’ work year with 185 days and no furloughs in exchange for the teachers agreeing to restore Open House and all faculty meetings to the same numbers as in past years. AEA has rejected all of these proposals. Even though the union would not agree to return Open House and faculty meetings, the District voluntarily restored the teachers’ work year and the corresponding salary.
15. Are the District and the teachers’ Union at impasse under state collective bargaining law?
Yes. After ten months of bargaining sessions, the District bargaining team asked the Regional Director of the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) to issue a formal declaration of impasse. You can view the District’s Request for Impasse Determination here. [11.17.11]
16. What does it mean to be at impasse in negotiations?
The parties are at impasse when they are unable to reach agreement without help from a neutral mediator.
Under state labor laws, PERB will certify that negotiations are at an impasse when it determines that the parties will not make sufficient progress toward an agreement without the assistance of a neutral third party. Now that PERB has certified that the District and the Union are at impasse, PERB will assign a neutral mediator from the State Mediation and Conciliation Service to facilitate talks between the two teams. The District intends to participate in good faith in these mediated talks and is hopeful that mediation will result in a fiscally responsible agreement that is good for both students and teachers. [11.17.11]
17. What is the next step now that the District and Union are at impasse?
PERB will assign a neutral mediator from the State Mediation and Conciliation Service to facilitate talks between the two teams. The District intends to participate in good faith in these mediated talks and is hopeful that mediation will result in a fiscally responsible agreement that is good for both students and teachers. [11.17.11]
18. What if the parties don’t reach agreement in mediation?
If AEA and the District are not able to reach an agreement in mediation, the mediator would certify the parties to the final step in the PERB impasse resolution process: fact-finding. [11.17.11]
19. How does fact-finding work?
An impartial three-person fact-finding panel would review the arguments and proposals from both sides and issue a set of non-binding recommendations for a settlement. Prior to issuing this recommendation, the panel may again seek to mediate the dispute to reach a resolution. The District and the Union would each appoint one member to the fact-finding panel. Then they would mutually agree on a neutral, independent fact-finding panel chairperson from a list of qualified labor relations professionals supplied by PERB. [11.17.11]
20. What is involved in the fact-finding hearing?
The panel would schedule and hold private hearings where both sides present their last, best offers. The District and the Union would prepare extensive presentations with comparative data and arguments defending their positions. The panel members would meet in private to evaluate the positions and the data. Unless the parties waive statutory timelines, the panel would be required to issue a report within 30 days. The report would contain findings of fact and non-binding recommendations. Before the report is made public, the parties would have one more chance to meet in closed session to reach a tentative agreement. If they do not, then the District and Union would accept or reject the fact-finder’s report. By statute, this process can take no longer than ten days from the time the report is made public. [11.17.11]
21. Is the fact-finder’s recommendation binding on the parties?
The fact-finder’s report is advisory only. Fact-finding is not like arbitration or a trial where a judge decides between competing cases presented by either side in a dispute. Arbitration and civil trials are winner-take-all situations. In fact finding, the panel chairperson can make suggestions that are compromises. The District and the Union may accept or reject the fact-finder's recommendations. [11.17.11]
22. Can the District just impose its last, best and final offer if fact-finding doesn’t work?
Yes. The last, best and final offer can be unilaterally imposed if a negotiated agreement cannot be reached. However, the District remains optimistic that the parties can reach a mutually acceptable agreement on class size before or during the mediation process. [11.17.11]
23. I’m not able to attend meetings of the Board of Education (the school board), but I’d like to keep up on what is going on at those meetings. How can I stay informed on what the Board is doing, the District’s budget, educational initiatives and everything else going on?
We have been providing and will continue to provide accurate information to our teachers, staff and community about our budget, operations, educational programs, student outcomes and negotiations.
As they have been for years, the agenda, staff reports, minutes and Superintendent's reports from our school board meetings are posted on our website. Our practice is that board agendas and supporting documents are posted the Friday before each Tuesday Board meeting on the Board of Education page of our website here.
Regular Board meetings occur on the second and fourth Tuesday of the month. Usually they occur at City Hall in the City Council chambers and are televised live on cable channel 15 in Alameda. Occasionally, the City Council convenes a special meeting on a day when the Board is scheduled to meet. When this happens, the City Council receives priority for their chambers and AUSD moves our meeting to the Alameda High cafeteria. We are looking into the financial and logistical challenges involved in televising meetings that we hold at the Alameda High cafeteria and hope to provide an update on that soon.
24. Where can I find the most recent budget numbers for AUSD?
The board meeting on December 13 included a presentation by CBO Robert Shemwell of our state-mandated First Interim Budget Report, a comprehensive updated report on our finances. The First Interim Budget Report also provides a three year snapshot of the District’s projected budget. Among other things, that report made clear that we don’t have $17 million in surplus nor are we spending $2.5 million on textbooks.
When we submit a state-mandated report like this First Interim Budget Report to the County and State for their review, Mr. Shemwell and Superintendent Vital swear under penalty of perjury to its accuracy. That budget report is here.
25. How much funding has California cut from the average School District since 2007-2008?
California’s broken school funding system is the root cause of the budget challenges that we must continue to face together in AUSD, just as must be done in all school districts in California. The cuts the State has made to school funding in the last three years are extraordinary. To illustrate the magnitude of these cuts, here is a graph prepared last year by School Services of California showing the negative trend lines in State funding since 2007-08.
26. I know we passed Measure A last March to help us survive these massive State budget cuts. Doesn’t Measure A replace the funding lost due to the cuts the State has made to education in recent years?
Locally, Measure A generates $12 million dollars to protect the eleven core educational priorities specified in the measure and to prevent the devastating cuts that would have occurred under "Plan B" if Measure A had not passed. We have budgeted strictly to what the community expected when it passed Measure A and will continue to protect those eleven core educational priorities specified in Measure A.
But Measure A does not completely fill the hole created by the massive cuts at the state level in recent years. As our outreach efforts in many meetings over the past two and a half years with the diverse interests in our community have shown, Alameda would not have supported a parcel tax of the size that would been necessary (in the neighborhood of $18-$19 million) to have completely back filled the state cuts of these past years. The failure of Measure E in June 2010 (seeking $14 million) confirms that.
Since teaching children is the core function of a school district, the vast majority of Measure A funds -- approximately 74% -- is devoted to teachers, with much of the remaining 26% also supporting teachers in a variety of ways. Specifically, $4,226,742 of Measure A dollars, 35.3% of its available revenues, go directly and specifically to teacher salaries to avoid pay cuts and furloughs that would have been necessary under Plan B. An additional $4,587,951 of Measure A dollars, 38.3% of its available revenues, go directly and specifically to funding teacher and counselor positions to avoid layoffs that would have been necessary under Plan B. You can review the specific allocations of A to teacher salaries and teacher positions on our website here.
For those interested in even more detail about the budgeted expenditures of Measure A funds, the staff report from the Measure A Oversight Committee's meeting in October includes the precise dollar amounts budgeted for each of the eleven specific categories of Measure A. That report is here.
The 11 member Measure A Oversight Committee is comprised of community members from across Alameda. The Oversight Committee is holding public meetings to review the district's compliance with the terms of Measure A. It will hold its next meeting at 6:30pm on January 26, will continue to meet throughout 2012 and will issue an Annual Report in the fall. The Oversight Committee will be re-appointed annually and will review AUSD’s compliance with the terms of Measure A for each of the seven years of Measure A’s term. In 2012 and following years, Measure A will also be subjected to an outside independent audit.
Information about the formation of the Measure A Oversight Committee, including the outstanding qualifications of its members, is here.
27. How is AUSD’s budget impacted by the State budget?
Given the ongoing dysfunction with the State’s education budget, we must continue to be fiscally conservative. AUSD wants to ensure we have a buffer at the local level to protect us from the bad budget news out there right now for students, school employees and school districts across California.
The way the school finance system "works" these days is extremely complex, but the basic outlines are these: Sacramento cuts funds for school districts, makes additional cuts on top of those cuts and then delays indefinitely the delivery of much of what is left. In addition, the state and federal governments maintain and continue to add unfunded mandates that school districts must pay for without sufficient state and federal funding to do so. As an example of how this system “works,” in 2011 the State applied a “deficit factor” to reduce by more than 19% the already-low amount it was to deliver to AUSD’s general fund and then delayed indefinitely (through a “deferral”) the transfer of more than 38% of even that reduced amount it owed AUSD. As a result, the only way we have been able to keep the district’s “checking account” positive with sufficient cash flow has been by drawing on our reserve and contingency funds, our “savings account.”
The updated multi-year budget projections in our First Interim Budget Report use budgeting assumptions and reporting requirements the State mandates that we to use. The budget report presented to the Board of Education in December showed that we will be able to keep our “checking account” positive this year and next year, but only by continuing to draw down the reserve in our “savings account.” Measure A is protecting our core programs, but our updated budget projections show that the cuts in Sacramento mean that our “savings account” will be depleted within three years. Again, there is no extra $17 million.
This is the painful reality of the budget environment we face in California.
28. If the State funding system is really the core problem driving all of this, can’t we do something to make the State fix that system?
Since the broken state funding system is the driving force at work in all of this, we will keep up the fight for Sacramento to fix school funding. In 2010 AUSD joined a broad coalition of school districts, organizations and individuals from across the State and filed an historic lawsuit against the State of California, Robles-Wong v. California. CTA, California PTA and CSBA are in this case along with AUSD and four families from Alameda, including the named plaintiff. The lawsuit alleges that California’s current education finance system is unconstitutional and seeks a judgment ordering the state to replace the current, broken system with a school finance system that provides all students an equal opportunity to meet the academic goals set by the State.
Bill Koski, Professor of Law at Stanford Law School and one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the case, explained that in selecting school districts, “the legal team looked for districts that are well run, managed efficiently and spending their dollars wisely.” Some additional information about that case is included here.
You may recall that in 2007 two lawyers-turned-teachers from Alameda High, Ann Casper and Rob Siltanen, volunteered to lead the work on that project and then kept at it for years. We are very thankful for their work. We have known from the beginning that litigation of this nature is a very long term undertaking, but we remain committed to this effort as it works its way through the courts. This is the first litigation challenging the constitutionality of the whole school finance system in California since Serrano v. Priest was filed in 1968.
In addition to fighting in the courts, we have also asked for all in Alameda and across California to join together to advocate now that the Legislature and the Governor provide fair and adequate funding for K-12 education.
29. Where do things stand in negotiations between the District and the teachers’ union?
The District met with AEA on January 30 to resume mediation with an impartial mediator. After meeting with the parties for approximately 4 hours, the mediator concluded the mediation and stated that he will be certifying the parties to the next stage of the impasse process: fact-finding. Although the parties' relative positions and offers during mediation are confidential, the District participated in mediation in good faith, and attempted to meet AEA's interests with a different proposal. Unfortunately, the union and the District were unable to reach an agreement on Class Size in mediation and will now begin the fact-finding process.
In fact-finding, each party will have an opportunity to present the facts which support their respective positions. The fact-finding panel will consider several factors including comparable class sizes in neighboring similar districts. The District will continue to work with AEA through the fact-finding process to try to reach a negotiated agreement. For more information about the fact-finding process, please see FAQ’s #19-21.
30. I’m hearing different things about whether teachers have received any raise or increase in their base salaries in recent years. Have they?
It is important that we all use consistent terminology about “raises.” Like most things in the world of public education, what constitutes a "raise" is much more complex than it may appear at first. In December a local blogger posted a piece entitled “A Raise is a Raise is a Raise? Or: An Introduction to the Wacky, Wonky World of Public Education Salaries” that clarifies much of the confusing terminology around public school employee salaries. After conferring with both AEA and AUSD, as well as filling a Public Records Request for data on AUSD teacher salaries, the blogger defined the terms in a way that we believe teachers, staff and parents alike might find useful. For your reference, here is that piece.
As the blog posting explains, some people characterize increases in base salary as “raises.” Since those increases are the result of negotiated and scheduled movements along a salary schedule, others call those “step and column increases” Whether called a raise or a step and column increase, the base salaries of most teachers have increased.The salary schedules of all our employees are published on the Human Relations page of our website, as the fourth item on the page here.
As health care costs have continued to rise significantly all across the country, we know the net “take home pay” of many employees has not increased, even with the increases in base salary. But in terms of base salaries, here are the figures on increases from 2010-11 to 2011-12:
(Note: These calculations exclude new teachers, since new teachers by definition could not receive any increase (i.e., since there is no previous year for new teachers, they are excluded from the calculation).)
- More than half of AEA members received a 2-3 % increase, with some earning more than 3%, including one teacher who increased both step and column for a 7% increase. New teachers (who are by definition not eligible for any increase) did not receive an increase. The numbers are shown here.
- 55 teachers received no increase due to being at the highest step on the pay schedule (53 teachers at $79,883.10)
- The currently negotiated salary schedule contains steps where no pay increase occurs. 130 teachers are on one of these steps.
- Not included in the annual step and column pay increase is the stipend paid for a Master’s degree.
- Not included in the annual step and column pay increase is the opportunity for teachers to earn extra pay for professional development.
- Not included in a teacher’s salary schedule is the potential to work more than 1.0 FTE (in secondary) and earn a stipend for coaching, department chair, etc.
31. Are teachers and staff allowed to advocate with students about labor negotiations or engage in any other political advocacy during the school day?
No. As this letter signed by AUSD Superintendent Vital and AEA President Gray Harris makes clear, discussion of disagreements on how to resolve the issues under negotiation "has no place in the classroom or at our schools during instructional hours."
32. Is it true that the district has refused to negotiate any proposals with AEA for 14 months?
No. Negotiations began 11 months ago, not 14. The District made initial proposals on two articles of the contract. Initially, AEA responded that it would not offer any counterproposals until the District agreed to either open a third article or not open any additional articles during these reopener negotiations. In May, after the Governor’s May Revise was published, the District agreed that it would not reopen a third article. AEA responded to the District’s initial proposals with the following statement: AEA proposes “status quo.” In other words, AEA responded to the District’s proposals by saying it simply did not want to make any changes to contract language including K-3 class size. The District asked AEA to make a substantive proposal and AEA refused. The District then presented its Last Best Final Offer.
Also in the Spring, the District offered an MOU which would have obligated the District to end all furloughs and fully restore the teacher work year for 11-12. Although the March 2010 MOU permitted the District to continue furloughs and reduce the school year by 5 days for the 11-12 school year and although the contract language permits the District to eliminate 3 days of professional development for teachers, the MOU the District offered in the Spring of 2011 sought to fully restore the work year in exchange for AEA agreeing to the return of Open House as a mandatory duty for teachers. The Union refused this proposal. Thereafter, even without an agreement, the District unilaterally ended all furloughs and restored the full work year.
After being presented with the District’s Last Best Final Offer on Class Size in June of last year, the Union then agreed to make another proposal. After refusing to meet and negotiate for approximately 8 weeks during the summer months, the Union returned in August with another proposal. The Union’s August proposal on Class Size did not accept any of the changes requested by the District. Based on its filings with PERB and its communications with the District, the Union has not disputed this point. Instead of agreeing to any of the concessions sought by the District in Class Size, the Union’s August proposal moved further away from its previous positions and away from AUSD’s offer and sought several additional contract changes which would have increased the District’s costs. For example, in addition to maintaining 20 to 1 language in K-3, the Union sought smaller class sizes in middle school, high school and special education classes. In short, the Union’s August proposal moved the parties further from agreement. The District then presented the Union with its Last Best Final Offer for a second time and filed with PERB seeking the assistance of a mediator.
Approximately 5 weeks ago, after the District sought to bring in a mediator, for the first time in these negotiations AEA opened the contract articles pertaining to salary and benefits. The District’s preliminary analysis of the Union’s proposal shows that it would cost $23 million over three years. In response, the District rejected the proposal on salary and benefits and offered a counter proposal on Class Size. In that counter proposal, the District offered to return to the table and negotiate class size in the event state funding was further reduced beyond existing levels or increased in a manner so as to make smaller class sizes affordable. The Union rejected this proposal with the legally erroneous statement that the District would be obligated to renegotiate even without the offered language. The District’s position is that the Union is incorrect: neither party is required to open negotiations on a mandatory subject of bargaining when the matter has been negotiated and the contract has been closed or “zippered.” Nevertheless, the Union refused the District’s counter offer and stated that it would not make another offer on Class Size.
Based on all of this bargaining history, PERB has correctly concluded the parties are unlikely to reach an agreement without the assistance of a mediator. However, the inability to reach agreement by now is not the result of the District’s refusal to make proposals. The District has made multiple proposals over several months.
The parties continue the negotiations process through mediation and the District remains hopeful that assistance of an objective and neutral third party will enable the parties to reach agreement. We are scheduled to meet again with our mediator on January 30.