By Stephen Floyd
The Silver Falls School District (SFSD) Board is hopeful they can compromise with the teacher’s union after an impasse was declared March 17, though administrators say there is little ground left to give.
During a special meeting of the board March 23, officials said they were optimistic a negotiated contract was possible during mediation sessions scheduled for April 5 and 17.
Board Vice Chair Aaron Koch, who is also on the district’s bargaining team, said both sides have come closer during prior sessions and he believes they can still find a compromise.
“I truly am hopeful that even greater understanding can be achieved and we can come to an agreement in a very timely fashion,” said Koch.
SFEA declared an impasse March 17 after nearly a year of negotiations. This allows them to consider a final offer or potentially strike, which could occur as early as April 23.
Both parties remain apart on issues related to class size and compensation.
During a mediation session March 9, the district proposed a cost of living adjustment (COLA) of 5.8 percent this school year, compared to a proposed 3 percent when mediation began Feb. 7. This was closer to SFEA’s recent proposal of 7 percent, but this contract article remains unresolved.
On March 23, Superintendent Scott Drue told the board the 5.8 percent proposal represented “the ceiling of what we can afford.” He said he is committed to competitive compensation, but there is only so much money in the budget.
“Our reality is we have a fixed budget, and we have to do what we can to support our teachers within the confines of our fiscal responsibilities,” said Drue.
On Facebook March 21, SFEA said they were seeking “compensation that keeps pace with comparable local districts.”
The March 9 session also saw a proposal 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.
This proposal did not result in an agreement.
The union has asked for specific limits on class sizes and specific steps to resolve excessive student loads. If these methods do not work or are impractical, they have requested a 1.5 percent pay bump for teachers with large classes.
On March 21, SFEA said on Facebook they are seeking a class size policy that provides “a guaranteed system of support for educators.”
On March 23, Assistant Superintendent Dan Busch told board members the union’s proposal would give too much authority to teachers with potential conflicts of interests. He said the proposal would allow teachers to veto potential solutions in favor of the 1.5 percent pay increase, while the ability of teachers to file grievances over class size would hold the district accountable to problems it cannot control.
“We will not agree to any of the following: establishing static class size guidelines, allowing a teacher veto power over possible solutions, or allowing grievances over a subject where we lack full control,” said Busch.
Board members were split on whether or not SFEA’s requests had merit.
Board Member Lori McLaughlin said compromising with the union’s terms may help rebuild trust after burnout from the COVID-19 pandemic. Board Member Jonathan Edmonds said he sees SFEA’s proposals as divisive and unnecessarily complex.
Board Chair Jennifer Traeger said she can see why the union might want language that prevents worst-case scenarios, given the recent impacts of COVID. She added she understood any strong emotions tied to those proposals.
