By Stephen Floyd
It was an unprecedented week for the Silver Falls Education Association (SFEA), between a rally in Downtown Silverton and a meeting directly with the Silver Falls School District (SFSD) Board.
The district and union continue to negotiate a contract one year after bargaining began in April of 2022. A sixth mediation session is scheduled for April 17. If an agreement is not reached the union can strike after April 23.
In a first-of-its-kind rally April 4, teachers and their supporters took to the streets to call for reasonable class sizes and fair pay. Chants of “Red for ed” and “You left us no choice, we have to use our teacher voice,” echoed down South Water Street as demonstrators marched from to the city center.
SFEA President Alison Stolfus said recent bargaining sessions with the district have been frustrating because the district remains firm on class size policy despite compromises from the union. Stolfus said the union is willing to drop language providing pay bumps for some teachers with large classes, while the district insists it will not accept a proposal with specific class size targets.
“I feel like we bent over backwards and they just keep digging in their heels,” said Stolfus. “…Just saying, ‘No, no, no,’ is not bargaining.”
Assistant Superintendent Dan Busch has said the district does not want a policy that holds administrators accountable for factors they cannot control and creates uncertain financial burdens.
Stolfus said teachers were also upset after a March 23 school board meeting when some board members described SFEA’s proposal as “perverse incentives.” The term is used in economics to describe regulations that reward bad actors, and board members argued the proposed pay bump could encourage teachers to misuse the policy.
Stolfus said teachers were “completely outraged” by this description of their proposal, especially the notion that they would overwork themselves for a small pay increase. She said teaching is already a heavier burden after the COVID-19 pandemic, and SFEA believes class size goals will help manage these changing classroom dynamics.
After the March 23 meeting, teachers reached out to the board and asked if SFEA could present its bargaining position directly. This was not normal protocol as the board is not authorized to negotiate, and because board meetings are not usually back-and-forth dialogues with the public.
During the board’s regular meeting April 10, Board Chair Jennifer Traeger said an exception would be made to these policies, provided they simply exchanged information and did not engage in negotiations.
“What we have the potential to gain is perspective,” Traeger told the board.
SFEA representatives said specific class size targets would be proactive by triggering a process to resolve problems, rather than a reactive policy that depended on teachers to raise individual concerns. They said teachers who feel uncertain, especially new educators, may not take action in a reactive system, while principals who do not have clear remedies may struggle to find solutions.
Union reps said they appreciated a recent proposal from SFSD that provided clearer remedies, including a 1 percent pay stipend for teachers with class size issues that could not be resolved. Stipends would be paid from a $30,000 annual pool and would stop once the funding ran out, ensuring the district would have predictable costs.
The proposed policy did not include specific class targets. Stolfus told the board, once the district and union come to terms on class size, SFEA anticipates being ready to settle on other outstanding contract terms.
Board Member Jonathan Edmonds expressed concerns about “arbitrary” class size standards, saying classrooms deserve individual attention the same way students do. He also said the idea of blended classrooms and student transfers could negatively impact SFSD’s K-8 structure.
SFEA said proposed targets are not arbitrary but based on research about student performance. Stolfus said, if for some reason the language adopted in the contract does not work or becomes too expensive, parties could reopen the contract.
Edmonds also said he was concerned the union’s proposal would not solve an actual problem and would create “strange incentives.” Stolfus said the board will have to take teachers at their word as professionals that they will not exploit the policy.
Traeger said she believes clear boundaries are important, while it is also important for administrators to make fluid decisions. She also said she thought the discussion that night brought to light the motivations of the union that had been missing from many board discussions.
Bargaining Timeline
April 2022: Bargaining for three-year contract begins.
Sept. 6, 2022: School year starts under expired contract.
Dec. 1 2022: Parties agree to enter mediation.
Feb. 7: Mediation begins.
March 17: Impasse declared, strike authorized, mediation continues.
March 24: Final offer submitted, 30-day cooling off period begins.
April 17: Sixth mediation session scheduled.
April 23: End of 30-day cooling off period. Final offer may be accepted, or teachers may strike.
