Home › Education › Education
School district, teacher talks stall
Union wants better pay for experienced staff
Download this story as a podcast!
STORY TOOLS 
More from EducationLabor negotiations have stalled between the Pleasant Valley School District and the teachers union, which wants compensation improved in order to stop experienced teachers from going elsewhere.
The two sides started negotiating a 2007-08 labor agreement in September. But after five sessions, both sides say they have reached an impasse, starting a process that likely will include a state mediator.
Teachers in the K-8 Camarillo district were expected to now begin "working to their contract," which means working only their contract hours and typically skipping activities such as noontime club meetings.
"We regret the inconvenience to parents and students," said Suzann Zeigler, president of the Pleasant Valley Education Association teachers union, adding that teachers will continue to do their best for students during the school day.
The union began negotiations "with every expectation of making progress at every meeting," Zeigler said. She faulted the district, saying it proposed a "take it or leave it" offer.
It's the first time negotiations have reached impasse between the teachers union and Pleasant Valley in more than 10 years, Zeigler said.
Teachers, who received an 8 percent raise last school year, had asked for a 6.5 percent raise this year and an additional $3,500 added to employees' health insurance compensation, which, the union said, would raise benefits to the level of those in other districts.
District officials, however, say they don't have the money. They've offered employees a 3 percent raise and a $700 bonus.
"The offer we have on the table is what we can afford," Superintendent Luis Villegas said. "If the district had the money they are asking for, we would have done it from the start. I think they do deserve more."
A beginning teacher's salary in Pleasant Valley, about $43,800, is comparable with other districts. But salaries are less competitive for more experienced teachers.
The top of the pay scale in Pleasant Valley is about $70,000 annually.
In addition, the district's health insurance compensation is the lowest offered in Ventura County.
"I am very concerned about the healthcare coverage," Villegas said, but the district has only so much money to increase compensation this year.
The union has suggested a 15 percent cut in the district's budget to find more money for teachers.
Zeigler said the district needs to finish what it started last year and close an additional school.
Pleasant Valley officials proposed closing three schools last year, saying the savings would be used to increase employee salaries and benefits.
Faced with public opposition, however, the school board stopped short of that plan, closing two campuses at the end of the 2006-07 school year.
Scores of teachers have flooded school board meetings this fall, sometimes tearfully urging board members to improve compensation. Several parents voiced support for the teaching staff at a meeting Thursday night.
The board "closed two schools dismembered and demoralized others," and still, teachers aren't getting the raises they want, said Dianne Glick, a Pleasant Valley parent. "If these teachers leave, more of us will leave as well."
Posted by trobbins on December 15, 2007 at 8:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Quote from above: "Teachers, who received an 8 percent raise last school year, had asked for a 6.5 percent raise this year and an additional $3,900 added to employees' health insurance compensation, which, the union said, would raise benefits to the level of those in other districts."
Full disclosure needed:
PVSD Teachers actually received an 8% mid-year raise, NON-retroactive, which amounts to a 4% raise last year and 4% this year. Last year the school district received a COLA of 8.38% and this years COLA was 4.53%. That means the district received a total of 12.91% COLA in the last two years. Also, our last proposal to the district was a 6% raise, Not 6.5%, and an increase in insurance cap of $3,500, Not $3,900. This amounts to about a half million dollar difference of cost (less) to the district- so we should get this right.
Where did our 6% proposal come from?
Since the district has received almost 13% in additional money over the last two years, our proposal of 6% this year amounts to only 14% for the last two years. That's only 1% (which costs the district about $350,000) more than what they received in COLA from the State. Since the district saved over $1.72 million from school closures and having fewer teachers and principals in the district, they SHOULD be able to afford an additional 1% and increase in insurance cap. FYI, the $1.72 million savings takes into account the loss of the CAPE charter revenue and the additional cost of the raise granted last year. The district likes to point out the loss of revenue due to the CAPE charter, but they have grossly exaggerated it. Using their numbers, it was about $1.39 million.
The school district likes to question our numbers. The funny thing is that the numbers come from them. The PVEA negotiations team uses the districts own budget (2006-2007 Unaudited Actual Report-September 6,2007) and estimates from documents presented to the school board. Of course the district likes to inflate costs and underestimate revenues, but we still use their numbers. We will gladly explain our numbers (which are actually their numbers), but it takes more that 3 minutes- the time alloted to a speaker at the board meeting. It is very frustrating. We will keep trying though.
Posted by mlmlcc on December 16, 2007 at 9:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Cathy Carlson from TO here: Doesn't your Board allow yielded time during public comments? You should be able to speak longer than 3 minutes if someone else is willing to yield their time to you. Find out the protocol. Generally, the second speaker submits a card in advance. When you run out of time at the lectern, you can ask if someone will yield time. You can figure this out in advance, bring someone, and tell the secretary that is what you want to do. Or, if that is not allowed per your protocols (if PVSD even has a written policy about yielding time) then you make your request at the end of your 3 minutes--"Will someone yield their time to me?" The second speaker either answers from the floor, or may be required to come to the microphone. They are NOT required to give their real name or address, per the Brown Act. Speakers can always put an alias, or Anonymous on the card to avoid retaliation. No one can be forced to sign a sign in sheet, either, at a public meeting, per Open Meeting laws.
The Board President must decide if he/she will allow you to continue on someone else's time. If there are too many speakers, this may not be allowed, but you sure can try! If the Board is giving you a hard time, and there are just a handful of speakers, this is abridging your freedom of speech. Stand there and point this out. They will certainly back down. This is how we the Public have taken back control at CVUSD. This is a Union contract matter, but you are forced to speak during public comments. Crazy!
DON'T let them use the Alinsky or Delphi technique on you! Google this, and find out how to fight being Delphi'd at public meetings! School administrators go to classes in Ed Doctoral programs to study how to manipulate crowds and get the consensus they want.
Posted by trobbins on December 16, 2007 at 8:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks Cathy. I do believe we have the option of yielding time. Did you see the last PVSD Board meeting Dec 13th? There were over 25 speakers, so it was somewhat restrictive that night. It's a great suggestion though.
I was intrigued by your suggestion that our Board used (is using) the Alinsky technique. I looked it up as you suggested. Wow, what an eye opener. I think you are on to something. I'm going to look into this. Thanks again.
Posted by justareader on December 18, 2007 at 8:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I only ask that through this struggle, our teachers keep their eyes focused positively on the children that they so care for daily. Please continue to address these issues with the Board but not in the classroom....I only ask this because in the past when there was a walkout (1980's?) - many kids were brought in to the politics thru classroom discussion and with the walkout itself....and felt abandoned by the very teachers that loved them.
Posted by trobbins on December 19, 2007 at 9:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
justareader- Very well said. I know I speak for many of my colleagues when I say that we love our kids. I love the kids I teach, and I love my own children. I see this as a struggle for both of them. I want the kids that I teach to continue to have great teachers who will stay with PVSD, and I want my own kids to have adequate health insurance, and hopefully dental insurance some day. We also agree that politics in classroom discussion is not appropriate. I wasn't around in the 1980's, but I can tell you that there is a concerted effort on the teacher's associations part to remind teachers to conduct themselves with the utmost professionalism in the classroom. We appreciate parents' understanding of our struggle.
Posted by KimMichaudPVSDteacher on December 21, 2007 at 11:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Staronline- Teachers are not whining about a 6% raise. On the contrary, that is what we are asking the board to give us. They have countered with 3% and a one time $700 bonus (not a raise in benefits). In order to get that raise and bonus, we would have to agree to add more students to 6th grade classes, the union would have limited rights when it comes to communicating with its members, and the principals would have full control of our prep time (which is 1 hour per week for primary teachers).
There was no negotiating between the district and the union, it was a take it or leave it offer. The union decided to leave it. Their members deserve better.
Why were two schools closed last year? The public was told it was to make the district more fiscally responsible and to give teachers a healthy raise to bring them up to par with neighboring districts. Our health benefits are so far from up to par. The $3500 the union is asking for would still put us at the bottom, just not as far below the next district. A fiscally responsible district does not have half full classes like our does. K-3 classes are supposed to have 20 students, how many of our classrooms are below that number? 4-5 classes are supposed to have 33 students, how many of our classroom are below that number? Middle school classes are supposed to have 33-35 students, how many of our classrooms are below that number? Our district needs to look at the way it operates. It is not a popular decision to close classes and move students, but it is one that needs to be done. It is too late in the year now, but I hope, next year, Pleasant Valley does not over hire and pay extra teachers while their current teachers are under paid. A fiscally responsible district operates with schools at full capacity and classrooms at full capacity. Pleasant Valley is NOT currently fiscally responsible but it can be if the people in leadership positions would make the decisions they have been hired to make.
Teachers come to our district, myself included, because they want to teach in a great community and the starting salary is competitive. But, they soon realize, myself included, that if they want to have a family and raise that family in a great community, you must look for a job outside of Pleasant Valley. I have five years experience and have started looking elsewhere for employment because, currently, I pay $6000 out of pocket for health care for my husband and myself. When I have a child, that cost goes way up. Instead of saving for my child's college education, if I stay in Pleasant Valley, I will be paying for health care costs. If I worked in one of the neighboring districts, I would not have such a high out of pocket health care expense. I love the children I teach but I love my family and my future children more. It is time teachers in Pleasant Valley start putting their own families first.
Respectfully, Kim Michaud, PVSD Teacher
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.