PD Editorial: Teacher impasse needs clarity from state

If the public needed any more evidence that relations between Santa Rosa teachers and school administrators have grown strained, it came with this week’s “work to rule” action.

A majority of teachers has committed to work only to the wording of their contract, which covers them roughly for 15 minutes before class and 15 minutes after. This means no club meetings, no after-school homework help, no practice for some performing arts groups. In addition, teachers are participating in public demonstrations, including marches to the district office.

Meanwhile, the two sides have officially reached an impasse and were scheduled to hold their first meetings with a state mediator on Wednesday.

But the fact is the district and the Santa Rosa Teachers Association, which represents 880 teachers, don’t appear to be that far apart on terms for a new three-year contract.

Both, for example, acknowledge that health coverage for teachers is woefully inadequate. At the moment, the district pays nothing toward health care and contributes a flat $1,440 a year for dental coverage and life insurance. Meanwhile, the school district’s health coverage options, according to the union, can cost from between $9,000 per year for the least-expensive family plan to more than $16,000 a year for a more comprehensive one.

Likewise, no one is disagreeing that teachers deserve a wage increase. Aside from normal step increases for experience and a 2 percent cost-of-living adjustment at one point, teachers haven’t had a raise since 2007.

These are unacceptable situations, but the school district can hardly be held to blame. Santa Rosa City Schools, as with all school districts, struggled to hold on to teachers and programs amid one of the greatest economic downturns in the nation’s history. Budgets are only now starting to recover after years of significant funding declines.

Likewise, it’s important to remember that it was the teachers union that bargained to have more money put toward wages than health care benefits, resulting in today’s significant coverage gap. The union believed at the time that teachers would be able to buy health coverage cheaper on their own. But that has not turned out to be the case. Regardless, a resolution is needed.

According to the district’s own survey comparing wages and benefit, Santa Rosa’s package ranks at the bottom of 11 comparable school districts - a situation that puts local schools at risk of losing teachers to other areas.

As a result, teachers are seeking a 3 percent increase in compensation and 2 percent - roughly $3,500 a year - to help pay for medical benefits.

The district’s most recent proposal calls for a 2 percent salary raise retroactive to July and an additional $1,500 a year toward health care costs beginning with a new contract in July.

The impasse appears to center on what resources the district has at its disposal to put toward salaries.

The new local funding formula adopted by the state gives wider latitude to local districts to make their own funding decisions. That’s a positive outcome. At the same time, there’s confusion over whether Santa Rosa City Schools, and other districts, can put so-called supplemental funding - monies designated for districts with a high number of English language learners, foster youth, etc. - for salaries.

The union claims the district can do so given that it has qualified for such funding. But the district claims its has strict limits on how it can use those funds.

State officials need to step in and provide some clarity. If the teachers are correct, state leaders need to assure the Santa Rosa district that it may use these funds for teacher wages with impunity.

The sooner the state can give direction the better. Santa Rosa can’t afford for relations to get any more tense, particularly when a resolution appears within reach.