Dear Editor:
As the President of the Gilroy Teachers Association, I feel it
is my responsibility to comment on the recent editorial
”
A raise for GUSD teachers?
”
in The Dispatch.
Dear Editor:
As the President of the Gilroy Teachers Association, I feel it is my responsibility to comment on the recent editorial “A raise for GUSD teachers?” in The Dispatch.
To begin with, the way our salary schedule is structured does in fact reward teachers for their years of experience, as well as the number of units they have obtained. For those teachers who are just starting out in their careers though, there is no increase for the first three years.
Those teachers, who are fully qualified and possess a valid credential, must make do on $37,978 a year. There are also “freezes” at years 12, 15, 18, 21 and 25 so the assumption that each teacher automatically receives a raise each year is not correct.
As for the issue of comparable districts, our goal in the past was to reach the average of the districts in Santa Clara County. Our goal was never to compare ourselves directly to districts such as Palo Alto or Los Gatos.
For years, we had languished at or near the bottom in terms of compensation, which not only affected our recruitment efforts, but our attempts to retain teachers. Unfortunately, we have not made much progress in this area.
In 2001-2002, we were 24th out of the 30 districts in Santa Clara County. Where we stand for 2002-2003 remains to be seen. In addition, we have changed our list of comparable districts so that we are comparing ourselves to those communities with similar costs of living and districts with similar student populations. Our current comparable districts are limited to six in Santa Clara County and four in San Benito County. Using the average from those districts, Gilroy is still behind in all areas.
The range that I gave to reporter Eric Liens, that we are behind as much as 9.5 percent to 15 percent, was based on these districts and had nothing to do with such wealthy districts as Palo Alto, which is not among our comparable districts.
Even more disturbing is that some of these districts receive less money from the state than Gilroy Unified, yet are able to pay their teachers more. How is this possible? We contend that it is a matter of budget priorities and how a district chooses to allocate its resources.
As for my comment about this not being the best time to try and raise our salaries, rather than wait for someone else to point out the obvious, we felt it was better to acknowledge it, but still try to work on improving our compensation.
Interestingly enough, in previous discussions with the administration, we have mutually agreed that the best time to try and catch up with surrounding districts is during times such as these, when neighboring districts would be less likely to give raises.
We also agreed, back in December, at the district’s request, to wait to discuss salary until more information became available, and only began salary talks once the district was ready. It should not have been a surprise to anyone at the District Office that we would ask for a substantial raise, even in these tough economic times.
The current impasse was declared mutually by both sides after we agreed we could make no more progress on our own. There was no animosity at the negotiating table, just a resigned realization that we had come as far as we could.
Then, as has happened every single year after an impasse was declared, the district “found” money and asked us to return to the table. While we are pleased that the district has been able to make an offer (2 percent with conditions) and move from their initial position of zero percent (or even a pay cut for those teachers expected to pick up health care costs) it is disturbing that the pattern of “finding” money once a little bit of pressure is applied has continued. It is in this area that there is still a lack of trust.
We believe that the money the district found should be used to improve our salary schedule. We believe that the money is there and is available for such a purpose. We are betting that there is even more money. It’s just a matter of reviewing the budget, line by line, and having an in-depth discussion with the district as to how its money should be spent, on programs, or on the people who work with the children of this community.
We look forward to trying to work out a fair agreement with the district. We have tried to take the high road from the very beginning, and have been more than patient. We would like nothing better than to close this year’s negotiations and move on, but we cannot continue to sacrifice our own livelihood. If we cannot come to an agreement, there is a mediator from the state who will try to help us resolve our differences.
In the past, we have been able to come to an agreement either during mediation or just prior to fact finding. We see no reason to believe that we cannot come to an agreement again and we anticipate that future discussions with the district will be productive and yield positive results.
We are also looking forward to that day when there is a spreadsheet from this district, approved by the Board of Education, that shows there is actually a plan in place to increase our salaries, that there is money set aside for that purpose, and no other. In good times as well as bad, that spreadsheet has shown a row of zeros in the projections for salary increases. How gratifying it would be to the teachers of Gilroy Unified to know that this district cared enough about its employees to begin such a task.
The Alliance of Gilroy Educators thanks The Dispatch for this opportunity to express its views.
Michelle Nelson,
President, Gilroy Teachers Association
Submitted Thursday, July 10 to ed****@****ic.com
