The Consequence

Sonoma County specifically, has also seen some of the consequences when a district faces insolvency - which include significant cuts and even school closures. To be fair, these consequences are not solely attributable to salary agreements, as there are other significant contributing factors like declining enrollment. Still, these are the details districts must grapple with in making decisions about the affordability of compensation increases. BVUSD Trustees and leaders must carefully consider all of these possibilities in making decisions about how to commit funds.

Other tangible consequences across the community include:

• damage to relationships in pitting members of the community against one another

• harm to reputations via personal attacks 

• deterioration of trust across the community 

• increased unrest and uncertainty 

• and extended process with significantly higher costs with regard to both time and money

We welcome everyone:  We encourage all members of our community to participate, to learn about the budget, and to engage productively.  We hope there remains an openness to understanding some of the details so that we can co-create viable possibilities. 

We welcome questions: In return, we are hopeful that people suspend conclusions without complete information.  Conversations about compensation are necessarily connected to all other financial details. In the same way that it is inappropriate to draw conclusions about District priorities from single line items, making financially sound decisions require a comprehensive examination of all financial details. 

We welcome honest scrutiny: Audits, oversight, and checks & balances are embedded into all parts of the budget cycle. We support interest in evaluating details within the District’s financial documents. The documents and the practices in place that builds them can be complicated. We welcome questions. 

Please continue to stay informed and look for opportunities for community engagement. We believe our community probably has some great ideas. A short list of possibilities at this time includes things like: 

• share your ideas for creative solutions that we may not have considered!

• continue to support our staff and our district

• avoid non-essential absences

• work with your child’s teacher well in advance of a planned absence for 3 or more days to enroll in a short-term independent study

• help us establish a positive presence on social media that encourages new families to consider enrolling

• help us communicate the importance of regular attendance (the district will be doing more of this in 2023-24)

• support efforts to pass a Parcel Tax (a current district consideration)

Fiscal oversight is one of the most important roles for any trustee. Not only do BVUSD Trustees prepare for meetings by reviewing all relevant documents in advance, trustees are able to ask questions individually (so as not to violate the Brown Act) throughout the month and collectively during closed-sessions about negotiations. Outside of public board meetings, our trustees regularly ask questions with district staff and further their learning by attending workshops and learning sessions with reputable outside agencies. 

Significantly, two of our longest serving trustees have had careers that required development and administration of governmental budgets. 

The process for appointing teachers to combination classes is something defined in the BVTA collective bargaining agreement. BVTA had previously defined a process that assigns combination class positions to the teacher with the lowest seniority. Current district leadership identified this practice as problematic and met with BVTA leadership to confirm a shared understanding prior to notifying any teachers of their assignment. The team felt it was important to follow the language as currently written. The consequence is that (unless another experienced teacher is interested in the position) the teacher with the lowest seniority does not have the option to opt out of such an assignment. The District is interested in revisiting the existing contract language.

It’s important to understand that for the purposes of sound financial planning, districts cannot determine staffing on a grade-level by grade-level basis. Staffing is necessarily determined by total district enrollment figures. Sometimes this means that certain grade levels benefit from smaller class sizes while others have slightly larger class sizes. Generally these variations move through the district as common practice. Sometimes (and this is particularly true with finances are tight) class sizes are either a little too high, or a little too low to be staffed with round (whole) numbers. Depending upon finances, it is occasionally possible to slightly overstaff a grade level (leading to smaller class sizes, but deficit spending). It is not financially responsible to overstaff by default, and sometimes tough decisions are necessary. Even if we just slightly overstaff a couple of grade levels, the financial impact is significant at about $145,000 (inclusive of certificated salary & benefits, classroom operation expenses like electricity, and classroom paraprofessional support salary & benefits) of deficit spending per grade level. The two combination classes planned for 2023-24 saves almost $300,000 that can be used toward teacher compensation. We understand that BVTA would assert that this amount ($300,000) translates to a 6% salary increase, but District calculations estimate this to be about 3.8%. Either way, that is a significant amount of money. 

All compensation must be bargained with BVTA. District leadership is interested in offering additional compensation, but cannot do so without agreement from BVTA teachers.

Compared to Sonoma County Districts, BVUSD receive 53% of the funding. 

This is significant in considering that our salaries are average. 

A deal was finally reached late on June 26, 2023. Here are the K-12 education highlights, and the impacts of these changes on BVUSD:

• 8.22% COLA for LCFF (BUVSD Impact: no change to our multi-year projections; 8.22% is the COLA percentage in use)

• 20% reduction to Learning Recovery Emergency Block Grant (BUVSD Impact: loss of $120,000 to revenue projections)

• 10% reduction to 2nd allocation of Arts, Music, Instructional Materials, Discretionary Block Grant  (BUVSD Impact: loss of $15,000 to 2023-24 revenue projections)

• 1:10 TK adult-to-student ratio set for 2025-25 (BUVSD Impact: increase in expenditure projections beginning in 2025-26 and thereafter)

• A new "equity multiplier" (BUVSD Impact: no impact to BVUSD specifically, but this will widen the funding gap between BVUSD and districts with high UPP)

Not really -  unless we were to stop accepting students from other districts through Inter-district Transfers (IDTs). To be clear, we don’t think it’s a good idea, and we are not planning to move in that direction, but doing so would allow the district to be Community-Funded (like Kenwood). 

Community-funded districts keep property tax revenue in excess of funding amounts provided through the LCFF. Our enrollment would decline significantly (by about half), but Community-funded districts do not earn money on a per-pupil basis. Community-funding districts receive a flat rate and therefore, from a strictly financial sense, lower enrollment is actually preferable. 

Note: We are not suggesting this as a likely possibility. Importantly, if we did pursue this option, it would not impact any students currently attending the district on an IDT agreement. 

#4 | There may be better ways to tackle this problem - like working together. 

• We don't disagree with the argument for better salaries. 

• We don't disagree that there is a county, state, and national problem. 

• Rather, we disagree with identifying Bennett Valley Union School District as the source of the problem or as having the capacity or influence to unilaterally repair this national problem. 

Working together to address the root of the cause (i.e., districts do not receive enough funding to sufficiently compensate teachers) would be more impactful, more sustainable, and more efficient than creating conflict in individual districts. 

Educational leaders across the state are growing concerned that the new trend that pits powerful labor groups against individual districts could lead to an unsustainable situation for all. Fiscal experts paying attention to Sonoma County specifically, are describing the current reality as a "house of cards." 

At the same time, CTA has done an excellent job in noting that teacher salaries are a problem across the county, the state, and the nation (see below).  We don't disagree that salaries should be higher, but if this is a county, state, and national concern, perhaps there is a more appropriate source and target for this problem than individual school districts and their communities.

BVUSD has great interest in pursuing possible revenue enhancements. To do so, we will need help from our entire community. The good news is that there appears to be some shared interest in this. 

Below are a handful of preliminary possibilities. Each comes with limitations and risks, so it is vital that we all have a shared understanding of what we may have to give up to increase funding. 

IMPORTANT

Please understand that the following quick summaries are not intended to present comprehensive evaluations - or communicate any District position or preference. These are quick, over-simplified summaries for the purposes of sharing possibilities. 

1. Convert a portion of the district to a Charter School. Some districts convert some of their schools or programs into a charter school in order to earn more funding per student. Initially, this sounds like a creative, solution-oriented idea, but there are a lot of complicated details that must be evaluated prior to investing great effort into this plan. 

Anticipated Gains

• Opportunity to provide a new model under a charter

• Estimated financial gain = $608, 248 - $1,799,152, annually

Possible Constraints

• This is a common practice in Sonoma County, but it can be controversial. Some see it as a loophole for financial gain that could be short-lived and lacks integrity

• Significantly complicates business operations (requiring additional business staff)

• Allocating funds toward salaries is very risky, given the practice could end abruptly

• Financial gains will disappear naturally over time in districts with declining enrollment like BVUSD

2. Phase out inter-district transfer agreements. Without Inter-district transfer (IDT) agreements, our funding model would change from LCFF to community-funded (or “basic aid”) like Kenwood. In this case, we could essentially afford to ‘opt out’ of LCFF funds because we’d earn much more from local property taxes. IDTs accompany about half of our students. We don’t like this option because we hold all of our families in high regard, and we cherish the vibrancy of the community we currently enjoy.  This option is complicated because per-pupil funding would increase, but enrollment would decline by about 50%. 

Important note: there is no indication that this is a direction BVUSD is pursuing, but if it did, current IDTs would not be impacted. 

Anticipated Gains

• Additional property tax revenue by changing our funding model

• Estimated financial gain =TBD

Possible Constraints

• Our district would get significantly smaller

• Certificated & classified positions would be reduced by about half 

• Loss of families from outside Bennett Valley 

3. Pass a Parcel Tax. A parcel tax earns a district additional funding by asking property owners to increase their property taxes by a flat amount per parcel, or property. The increased revenue is of great benefit for schools, but it is not always an easy win on a ballot. Initial investigations suggest that this could be one of the more viable options, provided we have staff and community support, but it is not a guarantee, and it does not necessarily mean a sustained increase in funding. 

Anticipated Gains

• Increased revenue by collecting an additional tax from all property owners

• Estimated financial gain = $107,118 - $519,078, annually

Possible Constraints

• Efforts to pass a parcel tax take significant money, time, effort, and community support

• Requires a 66% vote to be approved

• The District attempted parcel tax measures in 1991 and 1992, and neither passed

• Does not guarantee sustained funding increases as parcel taxes are temporary

• Voters may be less likely to pay taxes with such a high percentage of IDT agreements

4. Sell the property on Bennett View Drive. BVUSD has a third piece of property with aging facilities. Trustees have been engaged in conversations about what to do with the parcel, but we haven't gained much momentum.  It would provide additional one-time money, but a lot of the details are unclear, and so far, community experts have largely recommended against selling the property.

Anticipated Gains

• Revenue from selling property

• Estimated financial gain = TBD

Possible Constraints

• Selling property is typically not recommended and precludes us from some state funding

• Revenue is not ongoing

• Property is considered a good investment/asset

5. Increase LCFF base grant funding. This is the most desirable possibility, with the fewest associated costs. However, it the least realistic goal for BVUSD to tackle on its own. A small community like Bennett Valley needs influential partners to convince our legislators a change is needed. The California Teachers Association has developed great political power, and would be an ideal partner in such a pursuit. We would be very interested in collaborating with labor groups, like CTA, to pursue these endeavors requiring significant political and legislative influence. In fact, many have suggested that powerful labor groups like CTA could realize accelerated outcomes without pitting district employees against one another if efforts were targeted toward primary decision-makers at the state level. BVUSD does not disagree that our teachers deserve more money, but we do not receive enough funding (regardless of current expenditures) to solve this. 

Anticipated Gains

• Students are in classrooms more

• Estimated financial gain = TBD

Possible Constraints

• Increasing enrollment helps funding, but also increases operational costs

• Traditional attendance incentives have not been impactful post pandemic. Current studies indicate that families may have developed a new “relationship” with in-person attendance since the pandemic; this could be hard to reverse

6. Push for improved attendance and higher enrollment (see below for more). The District is already planning initiatives to improve attendance in the fall, and is looking forward to working with the community to reinstate our previously high attendance rates. Attendance rates have dropped since the pandemic, and we are losing significant money because of it. Increasing enrollment is a possibility, although with higher enrollment comes higher costs. 

*This option is the quickest to execute and has almost no risk or consequence outside the need for help. See additional information below. 

Anticipated Gains

• Students are in classrooms more

• Estimated financial gain = TBD

Possible Constraints

• Increasing enrollment helps funding, but also increases operational costs

• Traditional attendance incentives have not been impactful post pandemic. Current studies indicate that families may have developed a new “relationship” with in-person attendance since the pandemic; this could be hard to reverse, but we will try!

(3) Pre-Pandemic Enrollment & Attendance

• Consider the figures below that compare actual enrollment against funded ADA.

• Note that the financial impact is greater than the actual change in enrollment because of modified funding structures

• For example, actual enrollment only decreased by 5 students from 2021-22 to 2022-23, but the financial impact was as if we lost 18. 

• Similarly, we are projecting a decline of about 19 students from 2022-23 to 2023-24, but in terms of funding, it will feel as if we are losing 34 students (almost twice the actual amount).

This has surfaced as a priority for the upcoming school year. Admittedly, efforts to encourage attendance were purposefully muted for a few years during the pandemic. This year, we noticed that more attention is needed in the area of attendance, as our attendance rates dropped about four percentage points. We will be establishing an improvement plan over the summer and implementing new practices for the upcoming year. 

Please continue to stay informed and look for opportunities for community engagement. We believe our community probably has some great ideas. A short list of possibilities at this time includes things like: 

• Share your ideas for creative solutions that we may not have considered! We have more ideas to roll out in the fall, but we welcome more!

• Avoid non-essential absences

• Help us communicate the importance of regular attendance (the district will be doing more of this in 2023-24)

• Work with your child’s teacher well in advance of a planned absence for 3 or more days to enroll in a short-term independent study

• Help us establish a positive presence on social media that encourages new families to consider enrolling. Feedback about some of the unfriendly messages circulating throughout the community has not been positive. 

• Stay as informed as possible, and understand there are multiple perspectives

• Help us build connections & relationships

Absolutely not, but that doesn't mean we guarantee enrollment to every family who applies. 

Families don't enroll in tidy groups that make full classrooms. 

Grade levels and special programs have capacity limits. Once we reach the numbers identified in the board-approved Capacity Resolution, we place IDTs on a waitlist. 

Accepting every registration as it comes is financially irresponsible and not a standard practice in any district.

There isn't a perfect answer that is universally accurate, and it's not as simple as calculating the cost of a teacher and comparing it to per-pupil funding. That said, a reasonable estimate without additiona context is between 12 and 15 students.

Yes. Education Code Section 41372 requires an allocation of at least 60% to go exclusively toward salaries and benefits of teachers and paraprofessionals. Please note that this is different than previous figures (35.56%) that are limited to only teacher compensation. 

Does BVUSD meet this requirement?

Not only do we meet this requirement, but we are at the top. BVUSD is proud to rank at the top of the list in terms of the percentage of our resources we allocate to classroom salaries and benefits. We spend a greater percentage than the average for all California elementary districts, all California unified districts, Sonoma county districts, and our comparative districts group. 

Why does the recently adopted budget show a percentage around 59% then? 

The recently adopted budget does not reflect a salary agreement for the 2022-23 or 2023-24 school year. The percentage will exceed 59% as soon as there is a settlement. In fact, BVUSD has a history of spending more than all comparative districts. 

This is an important question that requires some explanation about what defines a “budget.” Although it may seem like semantics, a budget document  is full of assumptions and projections, but it does not reflect what actually occurs with perfect accuracy. Percentages like this one will resolve themselves by the time we close the fiscal year. This is one of many (hundreds of thousands) of important details our Business Manager carefully tracks and is subject to careful auditing and county oversight. 

As an important aside, a budget defines what we intend to spend, but are not appropriate tools for evaluating true revenues and expenditures - which are found in Audited and Unaudited reports of our “Actuals.” This is the same reason we don’t use a budget document to define what a district can afford for any expenses, including conversations around compensation.

We are aware of messaging that asserts BVUSD is over-projecting expenses to keep money from teachers. This is 100% false. 

Using the Appropriate Tool: Budget Vs Actuals

First, remember that budgets and actuals serve different purposes. 

Context is Important

Secondly, budget documents require the reader to consider the comprehensive picture. While it is always possible to pull certain details out-of-context to create a specific narrative, it doesn’t make this practice appropriate or accurate. 

Placeholders: Standard Accounting Practices

Thirdly, as a standard accounting practice, money that is earmarked for a specific use can be held in “placeholder” accounts while we determine exactly how it will be spent. This does not mean the District is haphazardly “dumping” money into arbitrary places. In truth, this means funds–especially one-time, categorical dollars–may be collected in one area of the budget for short-term holding. For example, our trustees must approve how we allocate the Expanded Learning Opportunity Program (ELOP) grant funding. Until the details are worked out, we might put ELOP funds (which could be quite large sums) in the 4000s area of the budget under “Supplies.” This is a standard and necessary practice to ensure the money does not appear to be a surplus, when we know it is not available for spending yet. 

False Narratives Flag Restricted Dollars

Finally, the specific cases recently flagged to suggest nefarious District accounting practices include restricted dollars that cannot be used for salary. The increase in the 4000s include categorical one-time dollars. The increases in the 5000s are for special education, in this case our pre-school aged students receiving special education through our Rincon Valley Partnership. 

This is true. 

Despite narratives circulating that we can afford much more, our low reserves are due to efforts to fully fund important programs and prioritize compensation for teachers and classrooms. 

Here are important details:

• Lowest Funding Matters: Every single local district offering higher teacher compensation has higher funding rates, and reserve balances that are 2 to 20 times larger than ours. 

• We Spend More on Teacher Salaries: BVUSD spends a greater percentage (35.56% compared to the county average of 29.47%) of available funds on teacher salaries. 

• We Spend Less on Administrative Salaries: The reverse is true for our expenditures on administrative salaries, which is much lower than the county average. In fact, in a list of about 20  comparable districts, we spend $578 per ADA (compared to $967) on administrative salaries.

In response to the question about what we are doing to raise our reserves, the answer at the moment, is nothing. We would like to increase them to at least 17% to align with Board Policy and financial expert recommendations, but have been sacrificing these balances for the purposes of compensation. 

Remember that reserves in the recently adopted budget are artificially inflated because we don't have a salary agreement for 2022-23 or 2023-24 yet. 

Our fact-finding hearing is set for Wednesday, June 21. The District is sincerely hopeful and interested in reaching an agreement during the process. 

Our proposal reflects a fair increase within the constraints of what we can afford. 

Our funding presents real constraints, but we agree teachers deserve more money. 

Our proposals reflect what we can afford without additional cuts to important people and programs.

BVUSD presented a post-mediation offer, because fact-finding is expensive in terms of both time and money. 

__________________________

May 4, 2023: District Post-Mediation Offer to Bennett Valley Teachers Association

1. The Term of the Agreement shall be from July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2025. For the reopener year of 2024-25, each party may reopen on salary and health and welfare and up to one (1) additional article of their choosing.

2. For 2022-23:

a. Effective July 1, 2022, the District shall increase all bargaining unit salary schedules by 7%.

3. For 2023-24:

a. The District shall increase all bargaining unit salary schedules by 3%.

b. Effective July 1, 2023, the District agrees to adopt permanently the increased Speech-Language Pathologist salary schedule, as set forth in the May 2022 MOU regarding the same.

4. The above, in addition to all tentative agreements reached prior to this date, shall close negotiations for the 2022-23 and 2023-24 school years.

Today, BVUSD Trustees and District administration participated in a full day of mediation with the Bennett Valley Union Teachers Association (BVTA). While the session was productive, we were unable to reach an agreement. This means that the District and BVTA continue to be at an impasse with regard to salary negotiations, but we have scheduled another meeting for April 13, 2023. 

We remain optimistic that an agreement can be made that meets our mutual desire for an increase in compensation while maintaining fiscal solvency. 

The District continues to maintain our commitment to negotiate in good faith and make incremental gains in narrowing salary disparities within the constraints of our far-below-average funding. 

We also remain interested in helping our entire community better understand some of the complexities and the inequities of school finance. We are confident that a shared understanding of the details will support our efforts to reach a satisfactory agreement. 

If you have missed the previous communication or have interest in reviewing some of the details, please return to this site dedicated to clarifying some of the information circulating. 

As always, please do not hesitate to contact me with any specific questions or concerns. My email is lexie.cala@bvusd.org.

April 1, 2023

An Open Letter to Teachers

From:  Lexie Cala, Superintendent

Re: Current State of Teacher Negotiations

It seems like frustration, resentment, and exhaustion have skyrocketed in the last few months, and we’ve lost sight of one of Bennett Valley’s greatest strengths: the way we work together.

I want us to get back on track. I am listening. I agree with you when you say that kind words don’t pay bills, the job is getting more demanding, our extraordinary teachers are our greatest asset, and you deserve more money. 

I really believe we have the same goals, but we definitely don’t seem to have the same information. 

There is a lot of misinformation circulating, and it is driving a wedge into what was previously a cordial and collaborative relationship. 

BVTA prepared a beautiful Opening Statement for negotiations with the goal of presenting “factual information to help guide us in our collaborative process, working together as one team.” Yes! Let's do it! 

How did we get from 'let's collaborate'  to 'let's strike?'

Unfortunately, my fears about including outside representation in a district like Bennett Valley are playing out, but I want to be clear that I’m not bashing CTA. CTA has highly effective strategies to help teachers earn more money. The problem for us, is that their playbook doesn’t differentiate much from district to district. Their approach works well in districts with large financial reserves, misallocated funds, careless spending, dishonest communication, and volatile relationships–but none of those things are at play here.  

I have to assume some of the standard CTA messages might be resonating, because I've shared too many details, and that's not helpful. I understand how a pithy message can be compelling, but over-simplification can quickly turn into disinformation. 

My inclinations toward transparency may have backfired. My documents are dense, and none of you have time to fact-check my data with the links I've provided or scour my detailed spreadsheets. 

Still, it's breaking my heart to see the shift in our energy, the unprecedented levels of stress, the herculean efforts, and the CTA media releases and flyers with misleading details (except the part that BVUSD teachers deserve more money. I absolutely agree with that!).

One of the biggest threats to productive collaboration is information-guarding. Without sufficient and complete information, we're left to connect dots imperfectly.  Since I don’t know exactly what conversations are happening, I’m left to make some assumptions. But based upon what I'm hearing, the questions that are asked during negotiations, and what I've learned about CTA strategies, there is a lot of confusion. 

School finance isn't simple and funding isn't fair, but I can back up every claim we've made as a District team with loyalties to our educators, our students, and our financial stability. 

Questions? Ask me. I love spreadsheets. I love math. And I love our educators, this community,  and this great district. 

While I'm opening the door for any additional questions, I need to clarify a couple things now:

1. Our budget proves we value our teachers.

Although BVUSD receives less money than other districts, we pour all we can into salaries. While we can't match dollar amounts, we are proud of the fact that we spend 35.5% of our budget on teacher salaries- compared to an average of 29.5% across the county. 

2.  Our budget doesn't look like most district budgets.

We earn 54% of the average funding across the county. Our financial situation is not great, but we have to accept that is not reasonable for BVUSD to compete with the highest-funded districts in our county. Revenue this low causes our margins to be tight, our spending to be extra careful, and our reserves are exceptionally low. 

Reserve dollars are significant in salary talks. The average reserve percentage across the California elementary districts is 25%. Without offering any compensation increase this year, our reserve is already under 10%. BVUSD Trustees have been so supportive of teachers that they have been willing to fund increases that violate their own policy to maintain a 17% reserve balance (which is the amount recommended by fiscal analysts).

3. There is no hidden money to “find” in our budget. We’re happy to take you through the budget line by line.

There is no standard definition of “reasonable” with regard to salary proposals, but I can define what it means for BVUSD: Our current proposals reflect what we can afford without any significant cuts to people or programs.

• We aren’t guarding a large reserve. Our reserves don’t even meet recommended guidelines (though they still comply with minimum legal requirements). 

• We don’t have superfluous costs. All of our positions and programs support essential student services. 

• We’re not playing a shell game. There are no hidden pots of money.  

4.  We do not have an additional $1.1 million dollars in our budget.

The flyer touting $1.1m in “new money” fails to mention the following:

1. One-time funds are heavily restricted. Much of the money cannot be used for salaries - or for supplanting salaries

2. New and one-time funds are already funding 10 positions. The portion that can be used for salaries is already being used for compensation.

These details matter, and omitting them is dangerous and inaccurate.

5.  A 19% COLA over two years does not equate to a 19% increase to our bottom line.

It’s a reasonable assumption, but it’s false. The cost of living adjustment (COLA) is based on student enrollment and attendance. If trends do not reverse, our declining enrollment and attendance will negate any projected increases from COLA.  Rising operational costs and unfunded program mandates also eat at this money. CTA is asserting otherwise, so if there's any question, please humor me while I revisit my first career as a high school math teacher, and take a look the "The Truth About COLA" graphic.

6. We use one-year agreements to maximize what we can offer. 

It's not true that the District's maximum offer was for a 3% increase. 

• 1st District Offer:  7% for 2022-2023

• 2nd Offer: Over 9% (plus some additional benefits and another enrollment-based increase) split over three years. 

To be clear, our second offer is an increase in total compensation from our first offer, but we don't think it's a better agreement for teachers. 

In fact, it's a good example of why we don't recommend a multi-year agreement  within the tight constraints of a budget like ours. 

One-year agreements allow us to put everything possible into teacher salaries without compromising our fiscal stability or student programs. 

I can't confirm it's been messaged to you, but CTA has been known to encourage multi-year settlements under the premise that districts will say "there's no more money" after giving a a sizable one-year increase. If that has been messaged, that is not the case for BVUSD. We are not that district. 

Anything we negotiate before June for a future fiscal year is based on assumptions because budgets are not finalized until then. If we are forced to create a three-year agreement, we must be conservative in our estimates because we never want to promise funds we may not receive. 

In light of our tight margins, and in support of maximizing teacher salaries, we believe it is in the best interest of teachers that we promise money only after we know what funding is guaranteed. 

Truth be told, I wouldn't mind an agreement that allowed us to take a break from negotiations for a couple of years - but I don't think that's good for teachers. 

Let’s Work Together

A few months ago, we were all on the same side, working together to support our students. When I sat down with our BVTA representatives before negotiations began, we had positive conversations, with free-flowing information, based on shared values and mutual interests. We were excited as we prepared to use the collaborative approach we’ve used for years.

People who have been part of the District for far longer than I have shared their surprise and disappointment with the way things have gone. One trustee said, “I have sat on several bargaining tables. Each one is unique, and we have worked through many difficult issues, including salary, typically in less than a day, but we always worked together as trusted colleagues.” 

Imagine for a moment that BVUSD leaders are trustworthy, that we are educators just like you who understand that paying teachers well leads to high-quality education, which is what we have dedicated our professional lives to. 

Take a moment to ask yourselves: what information do you want or need to better understand this whole situation? Whatever it is, I’ll provide it. 

I know you need and deserve a raise, and I want to provide one–we all do: me, the trustees, and other district leaders, some of whom have served here for decades, whose kids attend school here, and who have worked in partnership with you for years. We are all committed to increasing teacher salaries right up to the point where we run out of money. Let’s figure this out together. 

Always in partnership and collaboration,

Lexie