Santa Barbara Teacher’s Association Resubmits 23% Salary Proposal to District During Negotiations

Administrative offices of the Santa Barbara Unified School District (file photo)

This is Santa Barbara Unified School District’s (SBUSD) fourth Negotiations Update for 2024-2025 successor contract negotiations between the District and the Santa Barbara Teachers Association (SBTA). The District will continue to distribute the Negotiations Update after meetings with SBTA to inform our community on the progress of negotiations.

The parties met for their fourth negotiations session on January 11, 2024, a summary of which is below.

SBTA Resubmits Same Salary Proposal To SBUSD. SBTA Rejects District’s December 12 Across the Board Salary Increase of 13% Plus Salary Enhancements of 4% at First and Last Steps of Schedule.

On December 12, 2023, SBTA proposed a 15% increase for the 2024-2025 school year and an 8% increase for the 2025-2026 school year.

On that same date, the District responded with an offer of a 9% increase for the 2024-25 school year and a 4% increase for the 2025-26 school year. In addition the District proposed a salary schedule restructuring designed to raise the beginning salary step by 4% and the highest salary step by 4%.

SBTA responded by rejecting the District’s proposal and resubmitting its previous December 12 proposal unchanged. SBTA’s proposal stated: “Today SBTA is standing on our last compensation proposal”. SBTA called specific attention to rejecting the District’s proposal to add a new highest salary step, which would result in a 9% raise plus an additional 4% step increase July 1, 2024 for over 200 unit members who are frozen at that current highest salary step.

The District stated it did not believe SBTA’s response was good faith negotiations and placed it in a position of negotiating against itself until SBTA might decide a proposal is acceptable. In effect, the District would have to make proposal after proposal while SBTA made no new proposals. The District declined to engage in this kind of one-sided negotiations.

SBTA’s proposal included an explanation of why it believes the District can afford its repeated offer. The District stated this information reveals vastly different perspectives of the District’s finances, which led the District to make a “process proposal” summarized below.

SBUSD Makes “Process Proposal” to Facilitate Resolution of Parties’ Different Views of District Finances Now Instead of Waiting Until End of Impasse Process

If parties are unable to resolve their differences in negotiations, they must enter the impasse process which includes mediation and fact finding. At fact finding, each party presents its data and information to a panel that includes one neutral party in an effort to persuade the neutral that the fiscal “facts” support one of the parties’ proposals or something in between. Normally these presentations involve budget experts from CTA and the District.

The District stated to SBTA its belief that when the process is impeding progress, the process should be changed, and SBTA’s resubmission of its month-old proposal demonstrated that the process was not working well. The District proposed a new process referred to as “Fact Finding Before Fact Finding,” summarized as follows:

Proposal: Fact finding Before Fact Finding: Instead of waiting for months until the final stage of the impasse process to engage in this in-depth budget analysis, the parties can and should do so now. This process could be as follows:

  • Each party would bring in their budget experts who would receive all relevant budget documents and any information proposed by either party to be included.
  • The budget experts would meet and confer as they determine, e.g., in person or digitally, with or without the parties present.
  • The budget experts would report out findings and recommendations as they determine, e.g., in writing to the parties and/or in person at a negotiations session. These findings and recommendations do not necessarily need to be in agreement; for example each budget expert could make their own recommendations and findings.
  • The negotiating teams would use the information provided to inform their proposals and, hopefully, move to an agreement or at least closer to an agreement.
  • Even assuming no agreement is reached, it is likely both parties will be better informed and more prepared to engage meaningfully in the impasse process.

The District emphasized that having “new eyes” examine financial information held a better promise of moving the parties forward than continuing the present process, stating, “We want to reach an agreement and we think this will help.”

SBTA stated it would consider the “Process Proposal” and respond to the District soon, possibly as early as Thursday evening.

Next Steps: The next negotiations session is on January 19.

Dr. John Becchio, Assistant Superintendent, Human Resources
Kim Hernandez, Assistant Superintendent, Business Services
John Schettler, Executive Director, Student & Family Services
Ann Peak, Director, Human Resources
Dare Holdren, Principal, San Marcos
Jennifer Foster, Principal, La Colina
Kelly Fresch, Principal, Adams
Gregory J. Dannis, Legal Counsel


Written by SBUnified

Press releases written by the Santa Barbara Unified School District (SBUSD). Learn more at

What do you think?


0 Comments deleted by Administrator

Leave a Review or Comment


  1. Criticize my simple minded and somewhat right wing view point generally but this statement by the District is absolutely ridiculous. As someone with no direct relationships whatsoever with the schools (no kids, old, don’t know any SB teacher well) I haven’t followed this closely. usually I would be one of the first to say let’s hold the line on spending anything extra. But the bottom line here is that the District is playing with absolute fire. Every time I’ve read about this recently I’ve actually been shocked by the callous weasel like attitude of the district. The District needs to secure the Teachers livelihoods now not later. Instead they just want to weasel word about the “process” being unfair to a district that has already shown itself to be very poor at math and weak at running a district. This situation is growing into an absolute s**t show.

    The teachers are simply being straight up about where they are financially. No teachers no school. People can’t afford to work here. The board needs to lose administrators who live out of town and the wonky wokey retreat hugging mentality that prevails and get back behind their desks and back to the basics and look at the teachers proposal and make it work. Show your people you support them and that you relate to it.

    Before doing anything else the district has the obligation to the taxpayers, students, and community at large to provide a viable basic education to all students before anything else – including extra curricular activities and high salaries esoteric administrative positions driven by someone else’s national agenda. This is a situation that the district has created for itself.

    Esoteric lifeboats like building socialist housing projects is also ridiculous. How will you be able to do that equitably? If you’re going to be a real estate developer be a professional about it and figure out how to make the most money and have that money increase your budget. Beverly Hills high school had an oil well until the idiots forced them to take it out.

    One of the saddest parts of this that it would cost more to get rid of administrators than keep the overpriced weak cabinet that they have because many high level public employees concern for the student or taxpayer stops exactly at their own wallet, not a small number hire lawyers to increase their retirement and could care less about where the money is coming from.

    The teachers are being honest and upfront and Santa Barbara needs to support them. The district needs to figure out how it is going to make that proposal work instead of wasting precious time and money and remember that even with that increase most will still be nowhere near middle income in Santa Barbara.

    Maybe the process change should be an agreement as to what exactly would be a fair equitable pay schedule based on cost of living and comparative economics regardless of where the funding is and then sit down and negotiate how to get there and make them among the best paid in California. In a few years the housing mandates (Newsom is a God for making this happen) and market may start to provide reasonable workforce housing etc and the district will not be in chaos because they made a fair deal when they needed to.

    The cops do it – the union tells the politicians what the numbers are and the votes almost always go that way. I don’t like it at all but in this situation it’s time for SB Unified to wake up, smell the coffee, and realize they have to make this work.

    I love you all.

    • When you say “The teachers are simply being straight up about where they are financially”, is that because you’ve actually looked at their compensation data – as obtained from the district’s pay records and published on Transparent California – or is that simply based on the assumption that whatever is said must be true?

      Conversations like this need to be grounded in facts based on actual data – something that is almost always missing in discussion of education funding. We are facing a huge cliff ahead based on declining state revenue as well as declining enrollment, one can’t just say “the teachers are underpaid” simply because they think so or heard someone say that.

      In 2022 the median total pay of a full-time certificated SBUSD employee was $93,900. If we add the cost of additional retirement funding that teachers receive (that you and I don’t), a private employee would need to make $110,000/year to maintain a lifestyle equal to an SBUSD teacher. This is from their own pay records.

      Meanwhile the US Census bureau says private SB County residents with equal education actually make $82,274 – almost $30,000 less than a teacher.

      Is $110K an “unfair” wage?

      I don’t know, that’s a call for SBUSD parents to make, not me. Hopefully based on facts.

      Facts are the total labor expense of SBUSD in 2022 was about $167 million. If the SBTA’s original proposal were approved – 15% next year, 8% the year after – and were applied, as has always happened, to all labor groups that would cost $38 million.

      That’s $38 million taken from money that could instead be used for other purposes – to improve the education of our kids, which, as we’ve seen in the latest academic results, desperately needs improvement.

      Is taking money from improvement of our kids education to instead improve the bank accounts of people making a median comp of $110,000/year something that the parents of SBUSD think the right thing to do?

      Maybe SBUSD parents think that’s the best use of their money. If so, that’s fine, but that’s a decision that needs to be made with data, not with anecdotes. Our kids deserve that, don’t they?

      I’ve provided a commentary to EdHat detailing these financial issues and where the numbers come from (I “show my work”), but unfortunately they only post commentary from locals – which I am not. That’s their call, of course, it’s their site and I respect that, but I really do believe the people of Santa Barbara deserve the full details in making this decision.

      The SBTA is consulting with CTA officials to design the materials they distribute, those CTA officials likely do not live in Santa Barbara. Parents need the same ability to draw from expertise as well.

      This is important. Our kids education is at stake. Before spending tens of millions – that the district may not even have in the future – lets make sure we’re using all possible data in determining what the best use of education dollars is.

      • I would like address several of your points.
        1. why do you state that you live out of town in one place but say “our kids” in another? This reads like you are a friend of a politician not a concerned citizen. (For reference I’ve been teaching for SBunified for close to 20 years, my personal kids attend our schools, my friends’ kids go to school here, so if I say our kids I actually mean our kids.
        2. The person who creates the graphics for our union is one of our members, they work a full time teaching job, live in SB, have a child going to school here. They are not getting paid, so you can imagine our gratitude for the time they spend researching and their talent. Although I’m sure they’re thrilled that it looks so good that you could accuse them of being a paid professional.
        3. Just like everyone else who wants an income to retire on teachers have to pay every single month into that retirement system. Just like everyone else that means we have less money for rent, groceries, gas money. So while I am very thankful that we get a good return on that investment, and our whole community should be as well because that is a main reason we have so many experienced teachers who are staying in the workforce, that is not helping educators be able to teach and live in SB right now. If what we are getting from the district was enough to live here we wouldn’t have so many teachers leaving every year. The proof is not in the numbers you have provided, it is in the actual people who have to make it work and they can’t make it work.
        4. Finally, you say that the money the union is saying needs to go to raises is money “that could instead be used for other purposes – to improve the education of our kids, which, as we’ve seen in the latest academic results, desperately needs improvement.” What improvements are you talking about? We, the people who spend our days with our students, and our time developing curriculum, are the education. Do you want to spend $38 million on new curriculum, and training, and conferences, and travel to conferences, and consultants, just so that our educators can take that training and go teach in Goleta, or Lompoc, or Ventura, or Oxnard? The way to improve our schools is to invest in our teachers, everything else just goes down the drain.

        • Thanks, appreciate the feedback.

          1. I say “our kids” because the education of our kids is important to everyone – in Santa Barbara, in the state, in our country.

          2. When I say “design the materials” there is a lot more than just the graphics – the content is critical. Are you saying that the SBTA is not using the services of your CTA rep to craft the messaging used in your marketing on this? Please, I’d like to hear you say that.

          3. Teachers do pay into the retirement system. Depending on when they started that’s up to 10.25%. A private employee pays 6.2% social security and (according to Vanguard) an average 4.4% 401K match. That’s 10.6%. Can you explain to me what is different?

          I can.

          The difference is while a private employer would also contribute 6.2% for SS and 4.4% as the 401K match (total 10.6%), Santa Barbara Unified contributes 19.1% and the state contributes another 10.83%, for a total of 29.93%. That’s 19.33% more than a private employee gets from their employer. With a median total pay of $93,903, that means a teacher gets $18,151 more from their employer to their retirement – per year – than a private employee. Do you dispute these numbers?

          You are very thankful for the “good return on the investment.” In reality we know that the latest academic performance results show SBUSD kids are 6.1 points below state standards for English and 37.4 points below standard for Math. Perhaps we have a different definition of “a good investment”?

          “We wouldn’t have so many teachers leaving every year”. Do you have data to support that statement? And does that data show teachers leaving are doing it for pay issues? If your district collects that data it would be very unique. I’ve made public requests for that data from many districts, not one single one of them can provide it. One would think a problem so threatening it justifies taking tens of millions away from the education of kids would justify collecting data to verify the problem, wouldn’t you?

          If you have that data, post a link – I’d love to see it.

          4. “What improvements are you talking about”? I’ve heard much from teachers about the increasingly disruptive classroom environments these days. Teachers have told me they think that barring a wonderful change in parenting techniques in society, the only way to address that is to decrease class sizes to allow the teacher to better manage those disruptive kids. I haven’t done the numbers on SBUSD, but quite likely if that $38 million were put into class size reduction that could reduce classes to less than 20 per teacher – do you feel that would not only improve education but also benefit teachers by allowing them to do their jobs better?

          How about increasing the starting pay of teachers? In most cases I’ve seen a small fraction (usually 5-10%) of what the union is asking for would increase starting teacher pay by $5,000 or more a year. Given the complaints we hear about starting pay, wouldn’t that be valuable?

          What about giving teachers more classroom discretionary funds? I suspect a very small fraction of that devoted to classroom supplies would give every teacher several hundred dollars.

          “The way to improve our schools is to invest in our teachers”. Sorry but there is NO data supporting that statement. In our state the median teacher pay has gone up at rates well exceeding inflation in the last 10 years – usually 1.5 to 2x inflation. Yet academic performance has declined. We’ve done this experiment, and unless you have some data to produce I haven’t seen, you’re wrong on that.

          Why is the union not negotiating for things that would actually improve education? Why is 99% of what it is asking for “more money for adults” rather than things that improve education for kids (and help teachers teach?)

          These are just facts. If the parents of SBUSD know the facts and still feel paying adults more is what they want to do, they can do that. I’m not telling them to do anything except understand what the data says before taking a side.

          • Two points that I want people in our community to know is that: yes the union provides a CTA rep for every district, this is partially what our dues pay for. Common practice is that the CTA rep lives close enough to be able to regularly attend meetings. Our CTA rep has taken the budget data that the district provides and given us data such as comparing it to how the district has budgeted the last five years, and compares it to other districts, both local and with comparable size. The CTA rep also provides advice, and info about what is common practice with other district’s budget and bargaining practice so that we have good perspective. All decisions about how to use that data and advice are made by our educators.
            Second, while I could spend 30 minutes looking up specific numbers for how many teachers have left the last three years I don’t need to spend the time doing that because the district makes no claim that it isn’t happening. They know it is and make no effort to hide that or counter our argument that it is happening. People who actually live here know it is happening.

      • According to the link you posted, in another comment, you are misrepresenting the teachers median comp, which is not $110,000. Also, what you stated is entirely false: “the retirement funding that teachers receive (that you and I don’t)”
        The “retirement funding” you’re referring to is a 401K, which is something private citizens do “receive” (aka contribute to), but they don’t pay as high of a percentage.
        That is why in the piece that you posted it states:

        “According to Vanguard the average company contributes 4% of the employee’s salary to a 401K retirement account.  Adding a 6.2% normal social security contribution gets us to a total contribution of 10.2% of pay.
In contrast, an SBUSD teacher will have 29.93% of their salary contributed to their retirement this year.  That’s 19.73% more than private workers are given.

        A private worker wanting to fund their own retirement equally would need to make about $110,000/year to match the take-home of an SBUSD teacher.”

        The $110,000 amount you’re talking about is what the piece says private citizens would have to make in order for their 10.2% 401K contribution to match the 29.93% that is taken out of full-time certificated SBUSD employees $93,900 salaries. $110,000 is not the actual median comp that teachers receive.

        • TM, I could rebut every point in your “facts”, but won’t go down the rabbit hole because I think that is part of the problem here. The reality of this for each side could be distilled to one PP slide. Sometimes you just have to say WTF and do the right thing.

          It used to be the unions who would come up with the bs analysis to try to get something more but that’s not the case here. Even at the numbers the teachers are proposing it’s not like the money requested will ever buy many of them a home on the south coast outside of a trailer park or a small condo in Lompoc or Buellton.

          The fact is that despite all the analysis, numbers, and threats about terrible things that will happen if this money is spent – actually invested in the primary asset of the district which is the teachers – the reality is that if you let this asset (the teachers) go into retrograde (which has already started due to the districts hubris) there will ultimately be an exodus of both teachers and students and you won’t be able to bring new people in and you will be left with no budget and only the neediest students. On top of that administrators will flee and hit the district with wrongful termination lawsuits that will cost millions.

          Then you will end up having to spend the same money or more, or the staff that’s left will dwindle away until it’s just known a notoriously bad district that can’t keep people and always has staffing shortages. The most important thing in school is the teacher.

          Don’t forget that at least 15% of SB schools students families could easily afford to send their kids to private schools but send them to public schools here because they are good. Have you lived in a town where nobody with even a little money sends their kids to the public schools?

          Personally I think the community will benefit greatly from making this investment and the district will find the money if it simply wants to.

          Continuing to negotiate on this is a stupid waste of time and huge risk for the district. The teachers have drawn a line and should stick to it. The district should draw its line by showing respect for them and make SB Schools a place where great teachers really want to work.

          Simply the act of accepting a proposal that’s rooted in the daily reality that the teachers live could hopefully bring a sea change of attitude and a touchstone that allows them to move forward together in the best interests of the students and community at large.

          • “I could rebut every point in your “facts”

            And I would welcome that rebuttal. Go for it. Barring that, I’m afraid I have to say I’ve produced facts and published my source data – which is the scientific method. “Because I say so” is not.

            “Sometimes you just have to say WTF and do the right thing”

            No, when the education of our kids is involved, you need to stop, evaluate the data, and make a good decision. “WTF and do the right thing” doesn’t apply to decisions made to spend tens of millions on things that only provide benefits to adults in the district.

            “despite all the analysis, numbers, and threats about terrible things that will happen if this money is spent…”

            What “threats”? I’ve said nothing here except to examine the facts and suggest parents make themselves familiar with them. Would be nice if Board members did also, since they represent parents.

            “a notoriously bad district that can’t keep people and always has staffing shortages.”

            As I’ve already said above, I would welcome actual data showing the district has a problem with people leaving for higher pay in other districts or other professions. No district I’ve ever asked has ever been able to produce that, it’s somewhat unlikely SBUSD could also but would be great if they did.

            “The district should draw its line by showing respect for them”

            Do we teach our kids in Santa Barbara that “respect” is measured in dollars? I hope not, and I trust you’re just mis-speaking a bit.


        • I clearly said the total median pay for full-time certificated SBUSD employee in 2022 was $93,900. The $110K number includes the extra retirement contributions, which they do indeed “receive”, in the form of pension benefits. A private worker would need to make $110K to contribute that much to their own private retirement plan to match a teacher and still have $94K to live on.

        • Because it’s important, and because I have the data that your parents and board members need.

          As I’ve mentioned above, does the SBTA not consult with CTA reps during their negotiations, and are those CTA reps required to live in Santa Barbara in order to share their input?

          Data and facts have nothing to do with where you live. Just Newton was English doesn’t mean the acceleration of gravity in California is not equal to 32.2 feet/sec/sec.

          I’ve expressed no opinions here about any issue specific to Santa Barbara, just provided facts that should be considered – and have very clearly said I feel those decisions should be up to local parents (and school board members.)

          Do you have a problem with parents getting data to help them make that decision, from someone who has that data?

            • The data is obtained using a legal public records act request from the district’s own payroll records. You are welcome to make the same request – they should provide you with the same data set.

              If you feel it’s not accurate, you’re saying that SBUSD responded to a legal request illegally – which is a pretty serious accusation.

              If anyone feels their pay data on the site is not accurate, they are welcome to send a redacted copy of their 2022 W2 (with all personal info removed, all we need is name and total compensation) to and we can use that to verify and follow up with the district.

              Otherwise, you can do that directly with them, we’d love to hear the results.

              • When evaluating claims like this, you should consider the source, which is neither transparent, nor California.

                “Transparent California” is just one of the many names used by the tax-exempt “free-market think tank” Nevada Policy Research Institute (NPRI). NPRI refuses to divulge its own funding sources, stating, “NPRI respects the privacy of our donors, which includes the amount of a donor’s gift”.

                NPRI’s primary funding source, as determined by The Conservative Transparency Project, is Donors Capital Fund, a dark-money source of funding for conservative groups. Its donors also include The Cato Institute, co-founded by the Koch brothers, and organizations affiliated with the climate change denial movement.

                NPRI spends 75% of its revenue on six-figure salaries and benefits. Its goal is to undermine support for employee unions nationwide, thereby decreasing salaries and increasing corporate profits.

                • When evaluating claims like this, you should consider the data.

                  Ad hominem arguments are not valid anywhere.

                  If Stalin told you “the sky is blue”, would you say “no it’s not!!” or would you say “sure, it is, but you’re still a monster.”

                  If TC is not something you appreciate that’s fine – say that – but honesty would demand you also acknowledge that the data is the data.

                  Or prove otherwise.

                  • And the data say (data is plural, BTW):

                    “NPRI spends 75% of its revenue on six-figure salaries and benefits. Its goal is to undermine support for employee unions nationwide, thereby decreasing salaries and increasing corporate profits.”

      • tmaddison… is this you?

        You’re the director of “parent association,” a right-wing group aimed at banning books under the guise of “parental freedom” oh and you’re all anti-vaxxers, right? And it looks like you work for Transparent California, which is funded by the Nevada Policy Research Institute (aka billionaires like David and Charles Koch), a group with questionable political motives and data similarity questionable data.

        So the question remains. What are you, a guy from San Diego attempting to dismantle the public school system there, doing spending your time on a community website in Santa Barbara? Is your “Parent Association” aiming to target our community next? Because.. just don’t and go away.

          • As I’ve said I think this conversation is about much more than numbers it’s about attitude and the status quo in SB 2024 and sending a message that stability and sustainability at the human level is paramount and resetting the dialogue for the future. Ain’t gonna happen with a beat down.

            Btw I think that the info supplied by Todd is based in accuracy – it’s the interpretation and analysis designed to tell a self serving story that significantly defies the on the ground reality that people are living with here – is where it comes off the rails and that loses me.

            Data and analysis are great but not everything. There is a human factor too. In 1980 all the numbers and data said the Soviets would win the gold in n Lake Placid but what happened when the human factor of the Americans was added to the mix? The numbers meant nothing. Money talks and bullshit walks.

            I have disagreement with the assertion on Todd’s website bio that the “customers” of the school district are the parents. Parents have a responsibility to their kids and certainly are welcome to express opinions and positions. This is a fundamentally flawed political position imo.

            The “customers” of the public schools are in fact the students by and through the people of the State. The obligation is to provide all students with a good basic education pursuant to the education code. I think it’s possible that this base premise keeps the blinders on to Santa Barbara’s reality.

            Parents have a critical role and their opinions are important in this but they actually have no more say than any other citizen through political action and votes for board members and bonds. So calling them or treating them like customers is not a very good place to start and implies an obligation that simply does not exist. These are public schools. The good news is It’s a free country and any parents, rich or poor, who want to be customers for their kids education have the right to do so, and there are many many options available.

            But public schools are not selling education to parents or run by parent councils per se. Of course they have the right to be players in the election of the board, which is part of the reason we have a board and administration here that can’t see the forest from the trees.

            Todd is right that There are far too many examples of overpaid public employees lining their pockets at taxpayer expense and I appreciate the work that transparent California is doing to expose that. It surprises me that he is not going after the administration because that’s really where the waste is here.

            However If you start from the premise that the rank and file are just trying to line their own pockets then your whole motivation is either get rid of them or ‘reform’ them by denying them anything more.

            If you start from the honest on the ground reality here and remember the cost and the exacerbated difficulty in SB of replacing people who leave, as well as the dividends that dedicated long term employees produce, you realize like me that it’s a no brainer.

            Float on top a year of in your face antagonism toward the teachers by the board and administration I think rational people will come to the same conclusion as me. The teachers have been treated very badly and it’s not going to end well if the district doesn’t change their tact.

            the rank and file at SB Unified in 2024 are living in a place where a run down 1 bedroom apartment costs $3,500 a month, not including utilities. Even 80k doesn’t handle that very well folks. in the instant discussion you need to get beyond stats and down the reality on the ground. It’s a shit show here for renters at incomes of 75k and home buyers at 200k Undoubtedly some SB teachers are living in cars and on couches. They can’t fix everything and even this raise won’t, but they can change the careless callous attitude and how they are engaging with their primary asset.

            Todd and the administration are far far away from that reality. If they cared and understood the reality here on The south coast I believe they would agree with me.

            Personally I have no allegiance to teachers unions and the teachers in general. I have always had a jaundiced eye toward them all. Some are good, some not so much. The unions are usually melodramatic liars while taking self serving positions. Look at how quickly they threw the kids under the bus when covid came round. I could tell you many stories that reinforce my contempt for many individual teachers and administrators who looked the other way or didn’t even care enough to look in the first place, but I won’t. I respect their importance. Good or bad, they are going to be with your kids. And some of the good ones are really great. what will happen if we start losing them?

            Also, a question about the district proposal to increase the highest pay grade where teachers were maxed out. Was this an attempt to split that group from the rest of the rank and file in hopes that they are closely divided and it would be enough to tip the scales? Seems the district was a little hurt hurt by the teachers decision to just ignore it – which they should take as writing on the wall – if my assumption is correct. If this is true it just reinforces the point that admin is hostile to the teachers.

            But at the end of the day can’t we just be reasonable and figure out how to make this work and sustainably support people who are really important to our kids and community.

            Also any name callers, STFU. I don’t think it matters if Todd or anyone else is a farging icehole or whatever else that you say or infer, and you really don’t know anyway, and i kind of doubt that he is tbh, and I really don’t care one way or another. after reading his bio, Todd seems like a solid guy imo. His rebuttal of my post wasn’t inaccurate just a wonky deflection of the human reality here in Sb. And he’s entitled to his position which he’s mostly shared with us in a reasonable and collegial manner and I appreciate that.

            “It’s unwise to pay too much, but it’s worse to pay too little. When you pay too much, you lose a little money – that’s all. When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the thing it was bought to do.“ – John Ruskin.

  2. The school district is much too heavily weighted with executive and management level positions. There are way too many assistant this, deputy that and they all have staffs. Get rid of the excess top level and give the funds to the teachers.

  3. District propaganda at its best. They are offering 9% next year. That’s far less than the cost of inflation since 2020. Hilda makes 5x what a new teacher makes. Most of the Executive Cabinet make 2 to 2 1/2 x more than the highest paid teacher who has been with the district 30 years. And yet, they begrudge teachers a wage that allows us to live in the place where we teach. The utter contempt and disdain some of them show for us is stunning. The incompetence shown with this waiver issue is evidence they can’t be trusted to do math. Cut the positions at the top, the consultants, the travel and housing for Hilda and the cabinet, and we will have more than enough money for the 15% SBTA is asking for next year and the 8% the year after.

  4. The teachers need what they are asking for. They did not pad their initial ask they are being transparent from the beginning. The district does not understand this is about survival and what is good for students as well. Pay them less they will leave for much greener pastures in Oxnard and Goleta. The revolving door will continue because they make too little to make it unlike admin. where new positions with questionable value like the COO take down 274,000. That is what is one- sided. This top down model only works for admin and is draining the community of teachers we need. Bad enough we lost all our original cabinet.
    We need a bottom up model. Hope the community put signs in their years etc to show strong support for our teachers. Also let’s all see the complete budget. Taxpayers have a right to know where the monies are going, not just the union, the district negotiators and lawyers. After all the taxpayers are footing the bill and their kids and community at large suffer when teachers leave and students fail. If you ask me it’s the district that is being one sided and so very short sighted.

    • If the teachers are being transparent, why is the union not providing data on what the median pay of a teacher is now?

      In any conversation anyone anywhere has ever had with a company asking for a raise, the first step is for everyone to know what the asker is making.

      If “Bill” says he deserves a raise, does it not make a difference if “Bill” is “Bill the gardener” making $15/hour, or Bill Gates?

      Context matters. No one can make a real evaluation of the “need” for a raise without knowing what the person asking is making now.

  5. tmaddison: 93,k being median is probably from the bloated spending at the top in completely new positions of questionable use. The point is teachers are leaving in a mass exodus because our district is not competitive. And news flash all our institutioanal knowledge left years ago when our current Superintendent took over. Already we have lost 200 teachers. What I hear from teachers at board meeting is that their special ed caseloads are at 39. State law says 28 is max. Lots of other violations not that it even matters as these students rarely get help early enough to make any meaningful difference in outcomes. It’s not about mediam income and trying to make another arguement. It is about the fact 200 have left. Our district is in triage. The ones that leave are trained in key things we need. To me it is said this is even something the teachers need to fight for. Sad, and unavoidable. Some one tell us how to support teachers better.!!

    • Thanks. Median is a measure that is generally not affected by outliers – at the top or the bottom. That’s why the US Census Bureau uses it for income numbers.

      As for teachers leaving in a mass exodus, do you have data on that? No one else seems to, I’d love to see it. If the district has actually lost 200 teachers over pay issues that would be significant, but I’ve never seen that documented anywhere.

      • tmaddison it was brought up in public comment on the may 9th board meeting and at the other 2 with teacher protest. which can be found on the district site . Also you can google it in the Independent which is easiest. It is referenced.. On top of loosing 200 teachers..about two years or a year and half we lost all but one cabinet member, Dr. Bechio.
        Everyone else is a Superintendent Maldonado new hire. The COO position filled by a former LA Unified . an completely new is taking in 274K.

  6. My opinion FYI, all of the compensation data from both sides held up against rudimentary economic reality of the south coast simply shows it is what it is. Not enough. What worked in the past doesn’t anymore. economic realities have changed. Houses in effing Orcutt cost 700k not 300k.

    Attitude is driving this dispute as much or more than money because everyone knows that even the teachers numbers don’t result in most of them being what would be considered to be “well paid” in this region. Look at police pay for a guideline. I believe that teachers and police are equally important in our society.

    Analysis leading to argument and people trying to prove that they are right is not helping, just stoking the dispute. That’s why I don’t think your (and almost everyone else’s) approach is going to work.

    If the district was operating from a perspective of goodwill toward their primary asset, the teachers, this dispute may not have happened I the first place or would have been settled months ago. The district backed the teachers to the wall over several years of not prioritizing students and hiring highly paid out of town bosses, while seriously underpaying and obviously not caring at all about teachers from the highest level (look at 7 million dollars – that they WENT OUT OF THEIR WAY to deny giving to them) and the teachers have signaled strongly they aren’t taking it anymore.

    A decent CEO would realize this is an existential crisis and take bold steps to change the landscape and bring the sides together because the product is so important. Current leadership is quite unwilling to do that as shown by the self serving position paper and months of intransigence. Retreats, conferences and hugs are not going to fix this.

    If the teachers stick to their guns they will win or the administration will destroy the district and there will be massive flight of staff and students over the next few years.

    Why not start from that reality and make the primary asset the top priority, change your perspective back to providing a decent education for all students by working WITH your primary asset rather than against them.

  7. “It’s unwise to pay too much, but it’s worse to pay too little. When you pay too much, you lose a little money – that is all. When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the thing it was bought to do.“ John Ruskin

Volunteers Needed for the 2024 Homeless Point-In-Time Count

Trees Cut Down at Douglas Preserve?