By Stephen Floyd
Note: This article has been updated to reflect corrections and a statement from SFSD.
Teachers with the Silver Falls Education Association (SFEA) have declared an impasse and authorized a potential strike after nearly a year of contract negotiations.
SFEA made the announcement Friday evening, March 17, after a third mediation session on March 9 did not result in a finalized contract with the Silver Falls School District (SFSD).
Both parties remain split on class size and compensation, and SFEA said March 17 these are still high priorities for its members.
“Teachers are asking for manageable class sizes and caseloads to better serve students as well as compensation that retains and attracts high quality educators,” said the union in an official statement.
District spokesperson Derek McElfresh said SFSD was “disappointed to hear about this decision by SFEA.”
The morning of March 17, prior to the impasse, Assistant Superintendent Dan Busch had said in an email to district staff that administrators were “hopeful that an agreement can be reached soon.”
An impasse does not end mediation, but begins a process where both parties have seven days to submit final offers, then a 30-day cool-off period to consider the offers. After the 30 days, final offers may be accepted, or the union may strike, which in this case would be April 23.
SFEA and SFSD began negotiating a new three-year contract in April of 2022. An agreement was not reached by the time the current school year began and teachers have been working under the prior expired contract.
In Busch’s March 17 email, he said SFEA’s salary proposal on March 9 included a cost of living adjustment equivalent to 5.8 percent for the current school year. When mediation began, SFEA was requesting 7 percent COLA while the district was offering 3 percent plus a $1,000 retention bonus.
The district has argued they do not have enough room in an already-tight budget for significant pay increases. Teachers argue the district cannot afford to under-pay them when competitive wages are available at nearby districts.
Busch said the proposal for 5.8 percent, plus 1.5 percent annually the next two years, would be right at the limit of what the district is able to afford. While parties did not reach an agreement on salaries March 9, Busch said negotiations have been “positive.”
The two parties are even further apart on language defining the process for addressing large class sizes. SFEA has requested a specific cap on students while the district wants no class size limits in favor of allowing administrators to address large classes on a case-by-case basis.
During the March 9 session, SFSD proposed a system where the district would publish “class size funding ratios” each year. If a class exceeded this ratio, teachers would work directly with principals to resolve the issue including use of teaching aides, alternative class schedules, transfer or reassignment of students, or possible substitute days to catch up on out-of-class work.
If these solutions fail to resolve concerns, the proposal said a teacher may appeal a principal’s decision to the superintendent. If this also does not resolve concerns, the teacher may have the issue brought before the School Board, though the board will only make a record of the concerns and will not have authority to take action.
SFEA rejected this proposal March 9, and Busch’s March 17 email said class size “continues to be one of the major barriers between the parties.” SFEA has argued clear class size limits will hold administrators accountable and place the burden on principals rather than teachers to ensure educators are not overwhelmed.
