SCUSD Observer

Sacramento, California

Archive for the ‘SCTA’ Category

Teacher raises afoot?

From the Trenches

Optimism on School’s Chief Hiring Practice:

We teachers have all been sacrificing lately for the good of students and the financial solvency of SCUSD. I have an SCUSD-tested plan, however, to help us improve our financial and working condition, especially in light of the SCTA-generated concessions to our District. Here’s what we do.

Apply to the SCUSD school board to use the title, “Chief”, in front of our employee classification. For example, I would take over the moniker, Chief 6th Grade G.A.T.E. Teacher of Phoebe Hearst (it’s better to use capital letters…more credibility). You can immediately see how much more grandeur it gives a lowly teacher. But there are a host of reasons why we all should use the title, Chief:

*It improves student discipline. We all understand the importance of students deferring to classroom authority. Quiet kids make for productive kids.

*Classroom learning is enhanced. Studies show that totally compliant children make marked gains on standardized tests, the only true reliable test of student achievement.

*Teacher appearance necessarily will approach some higher standard. Let’s face it, a Chief Anything can’t come to school to improve learning for students in, say, jeans and sneakers!?! I’m a proponent of the bowtie, for example. You all must have lots of ideas on how we can dress ourselves more properly. Let’s do mandatory in-service on how to enrich a school community by what Chief Teachers wear. If only we could enlist some administrative help with teacher wardrobes.

*Parent-teacher conferences will go more smoothly and there will be more of them as well. No parent is going to dare skip the chance to talk to a “Chief” Teacher, and those pesky questions about student progress will be a thing of the past.

But this is the best news. We’ll all get huge raises. I don’t know how the Superintendent does it, but it’ll happen. He’s so confident that he replaced the Chief Financial Officer of SCUSD with a Chief Communications Officer. The financial predicament we face must not be all that bad, I guess! Maybe we’ll all just talk our way through the mess. I’m all for it anyway; it’s way easier than doing math and stuff.

So that’s one chief at $100,000 plus per year. His Chief of Staff? Again up into the six figures. The new proposed Chief of Family and Parent Engagement is expected to cost a bundle. We don’t exactly know how much the new Chief of Accountability will make, but the District spent $52,000 for a North Carolina outfit (none available in our state, I guess) to study accountability for us, so you know it’s going to cost a lot to hire someone to oversee how students, and eventually teachers are doing. Gotta be in the $100,000 plus range, though. All totaled SCUSD boasts seven new chiefs and counting. Heck, Mr. Raymond is spending thousands of dollars just to move secretaries, I hear. So any of you certificated people out there that know some secretaries, let them know about what we can do for them, too. Let’s spread the wealth!

So my plan then, placing a capital Chief in front of our lowly titles, will automatically generate an average salary increase of $42,000 per year, roughly $1 for every student we serve— if you look at finances the way our District does. And don’t worry about the school board; they’ve approved every Chief thrown at them. Besides, the Sacramento Bee hasn’t questioned the impropriety of any of our Chief’s Chiefs. It’s all on the up and up. You see, friends, we’re golden; we can’t lose.

So let’s start applying then. The District is apparently long on dollars, longer on Chiefs. The only thing we may be in short supply of is common sense. But we can solve that with a new position…..Chief of Better Judgment. Of course, we’ll have to run that by the SCUSD Communications Department for fiscal soundness.

Erik Knudson
Applying for Chief Random Article Writer status as the Need Arises


Do we have the tools?

Transcript of Interview with Jeffrey Callison and Jonathan Raymond on Capitol Public Radio Insight, Wednesday July 7, 2010

Callison: Sacramento school teachers recently agreed to concessions but the city’s school district still faces big challenges. Today we’ll talk about those concessions and challenges. We’ll start our discussion with the Superintendent of Sacramento City Unified School District, Jonathan Raymond. Welcome back to Insight.

Raymond: Good morning, Jeffrey. Nice to be here.

Callison:  Well, we’ll talk about concessions in a minute, but first where does the District’s budget stand now? Are you in a better place than you were, let’s say, a month or two ago?

Raymond: Well we are from the standpoint of, you know, our budget is balanced and we have submitted it on to the state as required, by the end of June and certainly the recent concessions and agreements which we’ve reached with our teachers have helped.

Now, we had a balanced budget before that but what this has enabled us to do is to keep our class sizes in the K-3 area low, and to also bring back and restore the vast majority of our counselors, so that’s helped us.

Callison: If the budget was balanced before the concessions, why seek the concessions?

Raymond: Well so we can make sure that we keep a lot of our great teachers and our great counselors and that why it was important to me. We have to balance either way and we were prepared to do it by making reductions which would have increased our class sizes as well as would have eliminated the vast majority of our counselors at our high schools. These were tough choices that we had to make, but that’s the state of where we are in public education today in California.

Callison: The current contract was due to expire in 2011 and earlier this year the teacher’s union said they didn’t expect any negotiations on a contract before then. What did you say, if anything, to change that?

Raymond: Again, we went through a conversation. Part of it was I’m new, and getting to know each other, developing a relationship and that’s a process that takes time and I’m pleased to say we were able to accomplish…you know, nobody gets everything they want — that’s why it’s a negotiation. But we were able to reach an agreement that I think it’s good for our community, it’s good for our schools and it’s good for our employees.

Callison: Jonathan Raymond, Superintendent of Sacramento Unified School District. We’ve been trying for some time now to have a Sacramento City Teachers’ Association official on Insight, but we haven’t been able to schedule a date yet, but we remain committed to including the union’s perspective on Insight and as soon as we can schedule an official, we will.

Let’s bring into the conversation, Rachel Minnick, who is a parent of children at Phoebe Hearst Elementary School which is in the Sacramento City Unified School District. Rachel, Welcome.

Minnick: Thank you. Thank you for having me.

Callison: As a parent I guess you’ve been watching what’s been going on, the District has had tough budget challenges as have many districts in California. The district and the union, the main union, came to an agreement. What do you make of all this?

Minnick: I think as a parent I’m pleased that the union was able to make some concessions to protect class sizes. My youngest is 8 years old so she’ll be going into third grade so she would be one of the kids that would be affected with the larger class sizes so I was very concerned about that. So I was just pleased to see that they were on board with a lot of the economic realities that the rest of us are facing in the world, you know, I’m paying more for my health benefits, I’m furloughed a little bit in my hours, so I appreciated that they were willing to take on some of that load as well, and share some of the pain.

Callison: When you say you were furloughed, are you a state worker?

Minnick: I’m not a state worker, I work for a non-profit but we are state-funded so we had to make some adjustments to our work force in order to accommodate the work and continue to serve the clients.

Callison: Jonathan Raymond, what were the main deals struck between your administration and the teacher’s association?

Raymond: Several Jeffrey…First we were able to — the teachers agreed to take three days equivalent salary reduction for two years.

Callison: So it’s basically a furlough?

Raymond: That’s basically a furlough — the equivalent of a furlough, but it’s not a furlough and that’s good news because it means — it doesn’t decrease the number of instructional days during the school year. Many districts have gone to that but we think it’s really important —

Callison: So the days will still be worked then?

Raymond: They’re still going to work, that’s correct, so we’re not going to reduce the calendar, the academic year will stay the same, which is important. They’ve also made some adjustments to health insurance. We had a grand jury report earlier this spring which highlighted our long-term health liability, and so there are a number of things through restructuring of prescription drugs and looking at some of the out-of-area costs, as well as a monthly contribution the teachers will be making toward funding that long-term health liability are very important. And one that’s also important is the changing of our professional development time and turning that into ongoing common planning K-12 which is an opportunity for teachers to get together and collaborate. That’s now going to be throughout the school district K-12 which is very important for us.

Callison: The concessions were aimed at reducing layoffs of teachers and other certificated staff, still I guess the District has lost teachers?

Raymond: We have lost some, yes, because our funding overall has been continually reduced. Many of the categorical funds, these are the special dollars for state and federal programs are being reduced and there are positions — again 90 percent of our budget is personnel, so when the funding goes down we have to make corresponding reductions.

Callison: Now there’s a political aspect to the layoffs issue and that is that layoffs in school districts certainly in Sacramento are governed by seniority rules, bargained between the administration and unions, and what that tends to mean, as I understand, is that newer teachers to the District which often means the newer teachers, period, are the first to be laid off. If there are layoffs, has that been the case in the Sacramento city schools district?

Raymond: Like other school districts that has been the case, and that is a challenge that we have to deal with and we have to face. There are certain ways we can work with that and this year we have skipped math, science and special education teachers. That’s an area that we’re always hiring even in this down time. Those are always hard to staff positions, so we are — through a provision called skipping — we can work with that, but that impact is felt here as it is in other school districts.

Callison: Rachel Minnick, parent of students in the Sacramento city schools district what do you think about seniority and layoffs? The teachers union argues that more experienced teachers presumably have more value because, well, they’re more experienced. They also tend to cost more because they’ve been in the system longer. If the slate could be wiped clean, how would you approach the issue of layoffs and seniority?

Minnick: I’d love to see a really reliable evaluation tool so that we keep the best of the best and we really pay them a premium because they really are the most important people in the community, I think, outside of parents, they are really important so I would love to see that.

And just to give an example, when my daughter was a kindergartner, she was kind of a victim of some of the hiring practices. Her kindergarten teacher was a newer teacher and a few weeks into the school district year, they had to evaluate the number of positions and the number of teachers, so my daughter’s kindergarten teacher actually was laid off — I don’t know where she went, I don’t know all the specifics because it’s a personnel issue, but she was replaced by a longer-term teacher about two weeks into my daughter’s first year of public school and I picked her up and she said, “Mommy, my teacher is going away.”

And I said, “Oh, I don’t think that’s true, maybe she’s just taking a vacation, she’s going to a wedding.” No. She really did lose her job and this teacher came in and taught and then during winter break, decided to retire. So when my daughter came back from winter break the teacher was gone. So it was this really interesting revolving door and it just had to do with somebody that had seniority but got moved around because of the number of students at different schools. So it was very difficult and very emotional for us.

Callison: Jonathan Raymond, Superintendent: If there were no seniority rules, how would you handle layoffs of teachers? Presumably, if you were able to lay off, without regard to seniority, you could layoff fewer teachers if you laid off more experienced teachers who make more money.

Raymond: I think the way to look at it Jeffrey, and Rachel pointed it out, is do we have the tools that enable us to determine, you know, who are the most effective teachers? And I would say we don’t. And that’s an area that we need to start to do a lot of work in and that’s an area where we need to work together with our teachers, with our principals, you know, with all of educators to find out those kind of tools which enable us to really determine, you know, which teachers are enabling our students to learn the most and the fastest and connect with our kids.

There’s a lot of work that’s occurring around the country, much of it funded through foundation and other philanthropic dollars, and that’s work that I think we need to start to pay attention to and come together around and all of us, collaboratively work together to see what can happen.

But right now, you know, the law is the law and so seniority governs and that’s the law that we live by.

Callison: Speaking of the law, Senator Darrell Steinberg, and the president pro tem in the California legislature has authored a bill that would amend the seniority law so that teacher layoffs were spread more evenly across a district because they tend to happen in lower performing schools, which for one reason or another, tend to have younger teachers. Do you agree with that bill which could become law?

Raymond: We’re taking a look at to see what the impact is. I want to look at that. The other part of that is why are we concentrating our newer, younger teachers in our lowest performing schools and that’s something we can do something about as a school district. So at the very front end, you know, we need to take a look at how we’re distributing our teachers, where we’re hiring and who we’re putting in and we’re working on that right now in Sacramento with our six superintendent priority schools. We’re trying to our best leadership, our best teachers, the best opportunities for kids in some of our most challenging schools.

Callison: Rachel Minnick, are your kids aware of all of the politics and the tough money situation at their schools? Do you talk about it with them?

Minnick: I think my kids are totally worn out on the discussion because my husband and I spend a lot of time talking about this. My kids go to a really wonderful school and it’s a magnet school where kids are at or above grade level, there’s parent involvement — it’s a wonderful school, but I don’t know that it’s a great representation of every school in our district and I wish I could say that that was the case, so I don’t know that my kids really know what it’s like to go to a different type of environment or a different type of school. I went to those schools, so I know, but I don’t think that my kids know.

Callison: Finally, Jonathan Raymond, let’s quickly touch on two related issues — the California Department of Education recently released an updated and expanded list of California schools on the fiscal early-warning list and Sacramento city schools remains on the list and in fact, almost every Sacramento County school district is on the list, as are some others in surrounding counties. Is anything going to happen soon, on the department level with the city schools district? Is there going to be any action taken either by the county board of education or the state department of education?

Raymond: I think the issue, Jeffrey, is one of finding some stability in funding. That’s one of the crises in public education right now which is why I think, right now, confidence is really shaken in the institution, which is a bad thing for everybody. It’s difficult to manage when you don’t know what your funding is going to be. Tell us it’s going up, tell us it’s going down, tell us it’s staying at the same spot and it’s a lot easier to manage to — but with uncertainty, with lack of clarity, with this really great unknown, it’s really challenging and what makes it really difficult in this profession is because we’re an organization of people, you know, is keeping people motivated to do the work.

As I say, teachers and principals can’t have a bad day. That doesn’t mean that they don’t feel well but what it means is when you’re in that classroom with 25 or 35 kids, you know, you have to be on and the great majority of the adults in our system I’m really proud of because they don’t have a bad day. They do what’s right and they do what’s needed for kids.

Callison: And finally, you’ve asked your board to create a new executive position at the city schools district, a chief accountability officer. Is this the time to add another manager to a system that’s laying off people?

Raymond: So we’re not adding another position, in fact, we’re reducing the cabinet level positions from eight positions down to seven. We’ve decreased our central administration by close to six million dollars. Dozens of positions at the Serna Center have been eliminated, it’s really want of saying — you know, we need to change the way we do business — if we want the same outcomes, you keep the same structure. You want different outcomes, you’ve got to change the structure and you’ve got to change personnel. We’re aligning around our new strategic plan — it’s our vision and it’s road map for moving the District forward, and these positions align with that. It’s about moving schools forward, as Rachel said, we have a number of schools in our district that do a wonderful job. They, too, can do better, it’s a question of holding our schools accountable for continuously improving and moving up that developmental sequence.

Callison: Again, we’ve been trying for some time now to have a Sacramento City Teachers’ Association official on Insight, we haven’t been able to schedule a date yet but we continue to work on that.

In the meantime, Jonathan Raymond, Superintendent of Sacramento City Unified School District, thanks for joining us along with Rachel Minnick, who is a parent of students at Phoebe Hearst Elementary School in Sacramento city unified schools. Thank you both for joining us.

Raymond, Minnick:  Thank you.

Written by scusdobserver

July 8, 2010 at 10:28 am

Why the high school counselor issue is important to elementary teachers

During the recent labor agreement vote between SCTA and SCUSD, a lot of secondary teachers expressed concern that although elementary issues (CSR in K-3) were addressed, their primary concern, the reduction in the number of school counselors were not directly addressed by the agreement. Many voted for the agreement in spite of that, because they saw the value of elementary CSR. I think it is important to understand why this is so critical for all teachers (including elementary teachers like myself).  I had some conversations with two high school teachers in the district, Lori Jablonski (McClatchy) and Larry Ferlazzo (Luther Burbank), here is what I found out.

Counselors at high schools provide two valuable services. They help kids with emotional and other problems that need to get solved. Given how many students there are in a comprehensive high school (or even a middle school) and how they are distributed (multiple teachers), they can easily fall between the cracks. Having a counselor to refer students to is a critical safety net.

In addition, they advise students on what classes they will need to take to meet their academic goals. Many colleges require that a counselor write a recommendation letter for applicants for admission or scholarships. At McClatchy, they were originally set to have ONE counselor for the entire school of over 2,000. The Superintendent’s most recent email indicates that the level will be about 3x that figure. But, that would just be at QEIA schools (not McClatchy), and at those schools, it would mean shifting money from other programs (like CSR at Burbank). Even then, that would increase counselors to 1 per 1,000 or 1,500 students. Will that be enough? High school teachers don’t think so.

How would you feel as the parent of a student in one of these high schools? How do you feel as the elementary teacher of some of these students? All of us (elementary, middle, and high school teachers) spend a lot of time preparing these students to be college-ready, it would be a shame if they missed the “finish-line” because there wasn’t a counselor to help them with their paperwork. That’s why this issue is not just important for secondary. We need to make it clear that counselor staffing is our next priority and that any further money or savings should be spent on returning counselors.

Written by alicemercer

June 24, 2010 at 5:34 pm

Time for the board to step up

By Lori A. Jablonksi

Sixty-seven teachers at C.K. McClatchy High School voted this week to overwhelmingly support the collective bargaining agreement between the district and Sacramento City Teachers Association.

I want to make sure I do my best to convey the general sense and mood as
McClatchy teachers gave their approval to donate to the District over $1,000
annually for the next two years to fund elementary class-size reduction and
to establish a retiree benefit trust.

Teachers voted with no guarantee that the counselors we so desperately
need at the middle and high school levels will return.  And they did
so without any word whether pink-slipped high school teachers would be
back in the classrooms next year.  One teacher called his vote a “leap of
faith” that the Board will finally “get it” and start paying attention to
the budget and actual spending, rather than just approve what the District
staff presents.

Another, a teacher with teens soon to start college, had tears in her
eyes as she voted (actually, quite a few did).  She told me that with her
husband furloughed and with the astonishing increases in the price of
tuition she had no idea what she was going to do about her kids’
college future.  This agreement, she said, would essentially wipe away
what little discretionary income her family had left each month. (She
noted too, as did several others, that at least with furloughs they could
spend the day off at home. A bit of gallows humor, perhaps, in a
terrible situation.)  Nevertheless, she told me she voted for it, as did
over 90% of the McClatchy staff.

Most concerning to me, however, was the overall sense of skepticism
expressed that Superintendent Raymond and the members of the Board of
Trustees truly appreciate that the teachers have agreed to make a
significant financial sacrifice in order to repudiate the “race to the
bottom” mentality others were so quick to embrace:  that furloughs (teaching
fewer days!) in any way, shape or form are consistent with “putting kids

Now that the agreement has been ratified, the District, thanks in large part
to its teachers, should be celebrated far and wide as a place where the
school year was kept intact, students and families were not turned away
through furloughs, and the true education mission was preserved.

It is now time to ask SCUSD board members to step up and match the
commitment shown by District teachers to keep cuts as far away from the kids
as possible.

Over the past year, I have joined others, including Board Member
Rodriguez, in advocating for a “line-by-line” budget review public work shop
in order to ensure that all dollars budgeted and spent are done so with
priority concerns–our kids’ classroom learning experience–in mind.

This is a plea to create such a process.

It will help re-assure teachers, parents and the community, at this
crucial time when so many are sacrificing so much, that the District Board
of Trustees are determined to leave no stone unturned to find ways to reduce
the cuts to teaching and support staff going forward.   We might even
discover a way to fully fund our middle and high school counselors and
restore some reality to the oft-stated principle that we believe in
nurturing a college-going culture in this district.

Agreement passes

SCTA reports that there were 1607 ballots qualifying.

The final vote was:
1009  YES
598  NO
63%  support

With these results, the proposed contract has been ratified by the membership.

Why a “voluntary” contribution instead of furlough days?

I’m hearing some folks express concerns about the “voluntary” contribution being put in the contract concession, instead of furlough days. This idea was kicked around since about March or April, but hasn’t been clearly explained or articulated. Here is why I think it’s a better deal:

  1. Once days are given up on the calendar (especially around Thanksgiving) they are hard to bring back, even if the days you try to bring back are at the end or beginning of the year.
  2. Fewer days are bad for kids (less instruction), bad for teachers (less gross pay = less counting towards retirement, etc.)
  3. A contribution is easier to “sunset” or end in an agreement
  4. We can control where the money is allocated more specifically (only for bringing back certificated staff via CSR and returning counselor positions).
  5. It puts us in the position of putting kids, and their education first.

Whatever way it was done, this does involve money. As you can see from some of the comments on other posts on this subject, there will be pain, but I hope this gives a little more clarity about why this method was chosen over furloughs.

Written by alicemercer

June 16, 2010 at 5:03 pm

Posted in SCTA

Tagged with , ,

Text of proposed contract

The Sacramento city Teachers Association (hereinafter referred to as “Association”) and the Sacramento City Unified School District (hereinafter referred to as “District”) agree to the following:
The overall purpose of this Letter of Agreement is to set forth certain understandings between the parties even though the Association believes there is no obligation to enter into negotiations. In order to provide fiscal stability to the District and to retain as many teachers as possible during this fiscal crisis, the parties are agreeing to make the changes set forth below.
1. SCTA unit members shall contribute the equivalent of three (3) days of salaries in each of the two years 2010-11 and 2011-12 only. It is estimated that this has a value between $2.1 million and $2.4 million of unrestricted dollars in each year. This contribution shall be made through monthly employee payroll deductions in a flat dollar amount of $95 per month for 10 months from each employee for each of the two years. The Parties will explore a pass through or donation mechanism. The savings the District derives from this contribution shall be applied to restoring K-3 class size reduction (CSR) with a goal of achieving a ratio of 1:25 for the two year period. With the restoration of K-3 CSR employees, preparation time shall be provided with existing staff at no additional cost to the District.
2. In the event that State or Federal legislation is passed to fund K-3 CSR, the parties shall meet to discuss the impact of the legislation.
3. Common Planning Time (CPT) Amendment. The Parties agree to amend the current contract language so that each K-12 teacher in the unit will be able to perform 20 hours of common planning time each year either before or after the regular school day. These hours shall be applied towards the hours required for professional development. Participation in additional common planning time shall be on a voluntary basis. CPT shall be planned by the site administrator in collaboration with the site staff. All savings from current funds used for CPT shall be used to restore bargaining unit positions including counseling positions.
4. Health Benefit Co-Pay changes and compensation shift. The Parties agree to amend the co-pays and program offerings in the following areas:
a) The Health Net prescription program will change to 5/15/35.
b) The Health Net out-of-area 65+ retiree program will be reduced to approximately the amount of contribution to the in-area program by replacing the current program with an agreed upon broker recommended offering. To support the transition to a lower cost program, such retirees in the out-of-area programs will have the Medicare Part B lowest level paid provided that the total costs per retiree is approximately the same as the in-area costs.
c) The Kaiser Prescription rebate program will end effective July 1, 2010. The savings, if sufficient, will be applied to the Kaiser plan to include chiropractic coverage first, then if funds remain to laser and multi-focal surgery if there are sufficient savings to fund these benefits. There shall be no additional cost to the District.
d) In the 2010-11 and 2011-12 school years, the savings from the changes listed in a) and b), not c), above will be applied to fund the District’s GASB-45 liability. The Parties shall work together to create a Trust to administer and fund the GASB-45 liability. On July 1, 2012, the savings shall be applied to the SCTA salary schedule as a flat dollar amount on each cell. Some of the savings shall be applied to certain cells of the salary schedule as the Parties may agree for the 2011-12 school year.
5. The Parties shall explore creating a retirement incentive for unit members retiring on June 30, 2012.
6. Professional Development. The District and SCTA agree to collaborate to focus the current Professional Development Program on desired outcomes.
7. Retiree Vesting. In order to reduce future costs and based on the parties’ broker and third party Independent Consultant’s advice, the parties agree to amend the current vesting period of 10 years in Article 13 of the collective bargaining agreement. Unit members with less than 15 years of service to the District as of July 1, 2010 will have three years from that date to qualify for the current 10 year rule. After July 1, 2013, as the Parties agree all teachers in order to be eligible for retiree health benefit will need to have the following:
at age 55 at least 20 consecutive years of service to the District in the SCTA bargaining unit at age 56 at least 19 consecutive years of service to the District in the SCTA bargaining unit at age 57 at least 18 years of consecutive service to the District in the SCTA bargaining unit at age 58 at least 17 consecutive years of service to the District in the SCTA bargaining unit at age 59 at least 16 years of consecutive service to the District in the SCTA bargaining unit at age 60 at least 15 years of consecutive service to the District in the SCTA bargaining unit
In addition to the current brokers, the parties agree to utilize the Segal Company or other mutually agreeable consultant to review and analyze the changes and make additional recommendations over the contributions to support the retiree health benefit program.
To reduce future costs for retiree health benefits, all qualifying retirees who receive health benefits may opt to decline the health coverage. The retiree will receive on an annual basis 50% of the average in area premium cost to purchase other insurance coverage(s) of their choice. The remainder of the savings will be applied to fund the District’s GASB-45 liability.
8. In the 2010-11 school year, unit members shall contribute $15 per month for ten months to fund retiree benefits. Beginning with the 2011-12 school year, unit members shall contribute $20 per month for each of the ten months of each school year to fund retiree benefits. These funds shall be placed in a Trust to be created by SCTA and the District and jointly administered by the Parties.
9. Follow up clarifications. The parties agree to clarify the language of the amendments identified in this Agreement in order to import them into the contract as soon as possible.
10. Parcel Tax Effort. The parties agree to work together to seek a parcel tax as soon as possible. The intent of the parcel tax shall include supporting K-3 CSR, additional class size reduction and other efforts to support educational programs agreeable to the parties and the public.
11. School Calendar Modifications. The parties agree to modify the K-12 calendar by starting after Labor Day and taking Thanksgiving week off. The work year for teachers shall be 181 plus 3 staff development days. The Parties shall meet to establish a 2010-11 and 2011-12 calendars as soon as possible.
12. The current term of the collective bargaining agreement shall be extended to June 30, 2012. However, in the event that the District receives a negative certification of its budget from the Sacramento County Office of Education, the Parties agree to reopen negotiations on compensation.
June 10, 2010