This agreement will be voted on by the teachers’ union from May 13 to 17 and the result will be announced on May 17. It has also been added to the agenda for the upcoming school board meeting on May 21 to be discussed by the district officials and school board members, where the entire contract is slated to be ratified.

Every year, PAUSD negotiates new terms with PAEA, which represents the certified staff such as teachers, and California School Employees Association Chapter 301, which represents the classified staff such as aides and custodians. Usually in this district, negotiations end in an agreement after early discussions. However, this year, the district and union could not come to a compromise after initial negotiations, setting the precedent for the first impasse between PAUSD and PAEA.

A closer look at the numbers

The original proposal by PAEA included an 8% increase from the 2022-23 teacher’s salary which was responded with 2% counteroffer from PAUSD. PAEA’s best and final offer was 5.5% which is 2% higher than PAUSD’s final offer of 3.5%. The tentative agreement reached on May 6 proposes a 4% increase for this year.

According to PAEA’s website, PAUSD has significantly lower salary growth and maximum salaries than neighboring districts. Going into this year’s negotiations, PAUSD’s salary growth from 2021 to 2024 was 10.2%, compared to the 15.8% increase in the Mountain View and Los Altos district, the 15.8% increase in the Los Gatos and Saratoga districts, and the 19.0% increase in the Santa Clara School District. If the tentative agreement is approved, PAUSD’s salary increase would become 15.2% for this year.

PAUSD’s current maximum salary is $154,366, which is 24.8% lower than Mountain View-Los Altos School District, 9.8% lower than Fremont Union High School District and 7.1% lower than Santa Clara Unified School District. PAEA President Teri Baldwin stressed that this gap plays a significant role in communicating the value of teachers.

“We always want our community to know that we are trying to recruit and retain the best teachers for our students, and we’re falling behind in salary in the area,” Baldwin said. “If we’re the number one district, we should be the number one or at least close to the number one in salary in the area.”

Beginnings of negotiations

In the context of these district negotiations, the impasse was prompted by a disagreement from PAUSD and PAEA’s final offers regarding the teacher’s contract for the 2024-25 school year. As a result, a third-party mediator stepped in to aid both sides to come to an agreement. The mediator assigned to this case was from the California Public Employment Relations Board. According to Superintendent Don Austin and Baldwin, both negotiation teams are separated and the mediator worked with both parties to reach an agreement.

The negotiations cover a variety of topics including class size, working conditions, evaluations, and salary — the subject cultivating the most discourse. The negotiations, which happen every year between PAUSD and PAEA, are not open the public. This year, the union and district called for an impasse, prolonging the negotiations for another six months.A the school board meeting on April 23, PAEA members expressed dissatisfaction during the open forum about the PAUSD salary schedule, and their experiences in the district. CSEA 301 Chapter President Mrigendra Steiner announced CSEA’s alliance with PAEA in hopes for a quick resolution of the negotiations that honors the professionality of the teachers. Retiring Gunn math teacher Kathy Hawes spoke about her 32 years at Gunn and the salary gap between MVLA and PAUSD.

“I’m concerned that people aren’t going to stay (in PAUSD) because (I talked to) my good friend who left for MVLA, and if I was there now I’d be making 37 thousand more a year,” she said in the meeting. “I love my department, I love my collaboration, I love the people I work with, but at some point I have to think about what would that $37,000 do for my retirement? What would that do for my cost of living? Can I afford to keep working in Palo Alto? And if we lose our experienced staff, how are we going to keep our traditions, culture and history?”

Teacher librarian Daljeet Gill also compared his current position to a higher salary at MVLA, but decided to stay at Gunn because of his long term affection for the school. In his opinion, the negotiations are not just about money but about convincing teachers to stay.

“If all we cared about was money, none of us would be in education,” he said. “The people that I see on campus, this staff, is incredible. They do so much for students that go above and beyond. But the more the pay gap increases, (the more that) you don’t necessarily feel like you’re able to do these things (for the students and) support yourself and your family as easily. Maybe there’s a little bit of not feeling as valued, and that maybe you’re more valued somewhere else.”

PAUSD Budget Reserves

A popular solution suggested by the teachers union is to pull from the district’s large reserves to fund a salary increase since PAUSD does not have an upper limit on the reserves, and its size has increased 187% since 2021, currently containing $135 million. According to the district website, PAUSD’s $135 million reserve is 34% of its operating budget, which is two times more than the 17% recommended by experts. PAEA members made the argument that a fraction of these funds can be allocated towards teachers’ salaries. However, according to Austin, drawing money from the reserve is not as simple or advisable as it may seem.

Austin likens the reserve to a savings account, asserting that regularly drawing from it for an ongoing expense is unsustainable because it won’t replenish itself if the district spends at a deficit from relying on the reserve. PAUSD Chief Business Officer Carolyn Chow provided an example for this analogy, explaining that the reserve is used for one-time costs and budgeted purchases.

“In your savings account, you might have to (pay for) a new washer and dryer, tuition for college and a vacation, right?” she said. “Once you spend it, it’s gone, you have to resave again. So in our case, we have a whole list of things that are in the reserves. So for example, we have textbook adoptions that don’t come up every year but we have to set aside money for so in our budget, maybe every five or 10 years we try to save up for it.”

PAEA negotiations team member and Gunn economics teacher Jeff Patrick agrees that it is unwise to use the reserve funds for an indefinite amount of time, but he thinks that the analogy of a savings account isn’t accurate to this situation.

“I think it’s a sort of disingenuous analogy given that the district’s not saving that money for retirement or college expenses, whatever it is that families typically save money for,” he said. “So we further don’t understand, and I would say have not been adequately given an explanation of why the district continues to expand that reserve over time.”

Patrick thinks that regardless of how the reserve is spent, the important next step is to address how much money is being added to it.

“In my personal view, and this is reflected by a lot of people that I’ve talked to about it, (it’s like), ‘Fine, you’ve got the reserve and it is what it is, let’s (just) stop making it bigger,’” he said. “So (going forward) making sure that any surplus money that the district has gets put into compensation or something that’s going to directly affect students rather than to sit in the reserves.”

Public Reception

Throughout the negotiation process, PAEA has aimed to raise visibility by organizing rallies and encouraging teachers to wear their PAEA shirts on Fridays and during events to show their support for the union.

One such example is on the morning of April 30, when teachers at all PAUSD schools assembled by school entrances and held signs such as “honk for teachers” or “supporting PAEA = supporting students.” Baldwin thought this rally was a great success and received a lot of community support.

“I think it’s been great,” she said. “Students have been out here and I’ve seen them out at different sites as well. And parents seemed very receptive. And even if we aren’t asking, they’re honking and showing their support.” PAEA and PAUSD have both been committed to keeping the public informed about this process. All negotiations prior to the impasse, which must legally remain confidential, and the current proposal of the tentative agreement are published on both websites. Each website has summaries of the proposals to make it more digestible for the public, however, due to the complexity of the negotiations Austin emphasized the importance of keeping the discussion contained so that its nuances are not miscommunicated.

“(Students) can have opinions, but really, this is between two negotiating teams that have a total of 10 people (and) that’s where it should stay because it’s impossible to explain every nuance,” he said. “I have concerns about involving students in this negotiation because if the question is ‘do you love your teacher,’ I’m going to hope the answer is always yes. I love our teachers. Everyone should love our teachers.”

School Board President Jesse Ladomirak echoed Austin’s sentiment.

“If your teacher is telling you something, our hope is that you trust your teacher,” she said. “If your teacher is telling you something, we don’t have a lot of interest in trying to get you to think the other way.”

These negotiations have been the subject of many campus conversations and for good reason: PAUSD, which has never been at an impasse for teacher contracts, may be the outlier in district negotiations. According to Chow, the district and union requests were farther apart than normal this year, but mediation is a normal and helpful part of many similar negotiations.

“I’ve been in other districts where they’re at an impasse all the time, every day of the year they’re in there at impasse,” she said. “It’s just what happens when you’re negotiating and you get stuck and need a mediator and come in and help parties (with) out of the box thinking.”

Although this impasse is a rare and complex topic, both the union members and district officials are committed to maintaining professionalism and respect in the midst of this negotiation.

“If (people) take anything away (from this), it’s not a fight, it’s a negotiation process which happens every year,” Austin said. “This year, we’re bringing in somebody to help us work through the tension. And it’s all going to be fine.”

A correction regarding the percentage of the reserves has been updated from the print edition.

By dividing the student body into two groups and allowing them the option of attending classes over Zoom while on campus or staying home, the reopening plan aims to return students and staff to secondary school campuses as early as March 1.  

Staff members were dissatisfied by the fact that the district chose to not consult them in formulating the revised plan. “It seems irresponsible to me to come up with a plan without consulting the two people it affects the most, the student and the teacher,” English teacher Kate Zavack said. “We’re the ones who are going to be living with this reality.” 

Palo Alto Educators Association President Teri Baldwin was similarly dismayed at a lack of teacher and student voice in the decision-making process. “From what I heard from the students that called into the [Tuesday night] board meeting and from the two student board members, it did not appear that students had much of a voice in this plan at all,” she wrote in an email. “I know that teachers did not have a voice in it. We have many safety questions, [including one] about their plan to keep so many people on one campus without any cohorts.”

Baldwin, who was not involved in the planning process, said she found out about the reopening plan a few hours before the plan was announced to the public. 

Many staff members are also unsure whether the health precautions mentioned by Austin will effectively address risks tied to returning. “We still see everyone, so if one of the teachers gets COVID, then it’s easy for us to spread to other people,” social studies teacher Warren Collier said. 

Math teacher Rachel Congress echoed Collier. “I want to be back on campus as much as I think most people do,” she said. “However, I have concerns about my safety; I have concerns about [students’] safety.”

For some teachers, getting vaccinated is a determining factor in returning to campus; under Austin’s plan, teachers do not have to be vaccinated before resuming in-person instruction. “I would have liked at least the guarantee [that] all teachers and staff are vaccinated before anything happens,” Collier said. “It does not feel like [the district has] our safety as the first priority. Also frustrating is why they are so adamant about getting back to school when it’s very clear that a lot of people are not comfortable with that.” 

English teacher Mark Hernandez, also raised concerns about the reopening plan. “If all teachers had vaccines, this would be a much different deal.” 

Ultimately, teachers spoke to a sense of being unprepared to reopen—and “betrayed,” as Congress put it—given that Austin previously announced in-person instruction would be “highly unlikely” to resume for the remainder of the school year. “For distance learning, we went to trainings [and] to professional development,” Congress said. “Now we’re going to do this totally new thing. We can’t just turn on a dime; we need to have time to plan this all out.”

Hernandez agreed. “I think a lot of us took what Dr. Austin said about having distance learning for the remainder of the school year—we took him [to] his word,” he said. “So this was shocking. We’re unready for this, that’s for sure.”

For weeks, virtual classrooms buzzed with both worry and excitement about reopening elementary schools for in-person learning. On Sept. 29, hordes of students, parents and teachers alike powered on their Zoom applications to tune into a virtual Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) school board meeting, patiently waiting to hear the board’s discussion around the reopening plan for elementary schools. During the open forum session—a designated time for community members to freely share opinions—voice after voice pleaded with the five school board members to delay their decision until a better plan had been set. Yet after an hour of speeches, the school board members unanimously voted to reopen elementary schools, leaving many attendees confused, outraged and upset.

The controversial decision followed the previous board meeting just seven days earlier, on Sept. 22. Throughout the meeting, which was scheduled from 6 p.m. to 10:30 p.m., the school board assured the public that they would not decide on elementary school reopenings that night, allowing community members to voice their worries without the pressure of an immediate decision. At 11 p.m., however, and following an extension of the meeting, Board Member Ken Dauber called to vote on the reopening plan immediately, a move decried—among others—by an editorial written by members of The Oracle staff (the independent opinions of the writers are kept separate from The Oracle’s news coverage).

Dauber, in a later interview, defended his motion for an immediate vote because he didn’t want the community to unnecessarily wait for what he saw as a clear-cut decision. “It was clear to me that the board was going to support the reopening plan,” Dauber said in a Nov. 18 interview. “There was no real suspense about how [the decision] was going to turn out. It was just a question of timing. And at that point, it was just delayed for no good purpose.”

Despite the motion being subsequently denied by three other members, such an action accompanies others by the school board that have increasingly come under fire. In recent days, many parents, students and staff have begun to rally for clearer communication and transparency from both the school board and the district, especially when it comes to pandemic-related decisions. While previously approved reopening plans for high schools are unlikely to proceed given Santa Clara County’s recent move into the purple tier of coronavirus precautionary measures, the question of transparency still stands as the district plans for future reopenings.

Communication during a crisis

On Feb. 28, during a campaign rally in South Carolina, President Donald Trump labelled the Democratic Party’s criticism of how he had handled the coronavirus as the party’s “new hoax.” Buying into the now-twisted idea that the virus itself is a hoax—and throwing caution to the wind over the virus—has proved deadly: the United States currently leads the world in COVID-19 cases and deaths, with over 12 million cases and 250,000 deaths, as of late November.

In the digital age of the 21st century, it comes as no surprise that to manage a public health crisis means to simultaneously also manage a public information crisis. The World Health Organization (WHO) cites communication as “the most important available tool in managing a risk” such as the current pandemic, especially in providing advice and guidance for the people who may be affected. One primary example of failure to manage a health crisis was during the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) pandemic in 2003, when authorities’ delayed acknowledgment of the outbreak’s severity led to the rapid global spread of the SARS virus. According to WHO, the eventual containment of the disease was only made possible due to “public awareness, community surveillance and behavior modification—all of which was directly supported by a massive international public health information effort.”

Throughout the pandemic’s activity in America, however, the Trump administration has been accused by experts of downplaying both the severity of the virus and its impact on the infected. With the Trump administration failing to respond to COVID-19 as a legitimate threat, the pandemic has become political in nature, making it difficult for national and international health organizations such as the CDC and the WHO to effectively advise on necessary precautions.

In turn, the burden of public health has fallen onto the shoulders of state and county officials. Santa Clara County, for example, was one of the first counties in the nation to issue a shelter-in-place order in March, and Santa Clara Public Health Director Sara Cody has been awarded Momentum Health’s 2020 Shining Stars Award of Excellence for the Santa Clara team’s quick response and subsequent information releases.

The decisions made at the county level trickle down to the city school board level. In October, with elementary schools under staggered reopening plans, PAUSD shifted attention to reopening middle and high schools for the second semester. The iterations of reopening plans, however, have been complex and erratic. The possibility of livestreaming was suggested, then pulled off the table. In the very earliest stages of planning, all seven of a student’s classes could be held in-person, while later plans called for only English and social studies classes to return on campus. Such a series of changes left many families unsure and unready to make a binding decision—and speak to the importance of communication and transparency, even at the local level.

Transparency at PAUSD

The district, for its part, has put measures in place to communicate information to the people. Superintendent Don Austin sends informational emails to parents every Friday. Many updates have also been posted to the district page, as well as Austin’s Twitter account. The school board members check their emails often, and a running list of coronavirus cases from elementary schools is available online.

Such communication measures are only part of the district’s responsibility to provide transparent information to the community. Dauber believes that the school board has an obligation to communicate to its constituents, especially during a time when plans can change within days. “The board has an obligation to be transparent in terms of ensuring that the board meetings are open, that the public has a clear understanding about why the board makes their decisions [and] that there’s an opportunity for the public to participate in the decision-making process,” Dauber said. “I think during the coronavirus [pandemic], a lot is changing in how students are getting their education, so I think that it’s even more important to double-down on opportunities for participation and communication.”

English teacher Kate Zavack described her ideal of transparent communication as timely, accurate and being done in good faith. “The goal is to tell the truth,” she said. “Of course, there are things that are sensitive material that can’t be fully disclosed. But to the extent that it can be, that it is and that things aren’t mischaracterized and misrepresented, especially on purpose.”

According to board policy, the district’s standard procedure for decision-making, first and foremost, requires identifying a problem. Following this, the Superintendent or a designated board member researches and collects data on the problem, as well as possible solutions. The board then allows community members to give their input on the issue during public meetings. Finally, the policy is drafted and presented at a subsequent meeting, after which it is voted on by the board.

Reopening controversy

On Nov. 10, the school board unanimously agreed to reopen secondary schools despite an hours-long open forum with students, parents and staff strongly cautioning against it, leading to a whirlwind of reactions. While some applauded the board for allowing struggling students to return in-person, many others were upset by the outcome of the meeting. Out of over 50 people who spoke at the board meeting’s open forum, only two supported the reopening plan. Regardless, given the current purple tier, reopening is unlikely to occur.

As both a parent and a biology teacher, Maria Powell felt that the board and the district has not listened to her perspective over the years. “I was dismissed at every opportunity,” she said. “I’ve spoken at board meetings. I’ve spoken to superintendents. I’ve spoken with the principals. As a parent, I was treated like what I had to say was wrong. I was just totally dismissed.”

School Board Representative senior Thomas Li believes that much of the conflict could be resolved if the board could effectively communicate their rationale for reopening to the public. “Taking the time to directly address and respond to the concerns that the committee has brought up, or explaining the rationale behind their vote would be a good step for transparency for the board in terms of helping the public understand why they’re making these decisions,” Li said.

Part of the outrage also stems from the district’s portrayal of the many negotiations that often happen behind closed doors. “I think one thing that’s been routinely frustrating for teachers is the way negotiations have been characterized between the [teacher’s] union and the district,” Zavack said. “Teachers’ involvement and planning have also been mischaracterized, regarding when people have been consulted or not.”

During the Nov. 10 board meeting, Board Member Melissa Baten Caswell proposed an amendment that would require district staff to actively incorporate feedback from teachers into their reopening plan, which was rejected by Dauber and Board President Todd Collins. To Dauber, this amendment created an unnecessary obstacle to the reopening plan. “While I think it’s really important for teachers to have a chance to give feedback, I don’t think it’s necessary for us for the district to reach an agreement with teachers about how schools are going to reopen,” Dauber said. “There’s a whole range of things that the district is required to reach an agreement with teachers about, but this isn’t one of them.”

A later proposed amendment, giving teachers an opportunity to provide input for consideration, was unanimously agreed upon by the board, including Dauber and Collins. Unlike the first proposed amendment, which promised action, this amendment promised listening. “That was perfectly fine,” Dauber said. “I think that’s what we should be doing. I just wanted to make sure that we weren’t putting ourselves in a position where there had to be some outcome of that feedback, because I think that was just going to create more of a burden than we needed.”

Though the district is not required to reach a consensus with teachers regarding reopening, many teachers had concerns about the feedback survey provided instead. According to Powell, the survey was administered around 6 p.m. and open for 24 hours, while the following board meeting was scheduled for 3 p.m. the next day. “Many teachers have back-to-back classes,” Powell said. “When are we supposed to collect our thoughts about the survey when we didn’t get it until six o’clock at night? It looks like transparency; it looks like the board has gotten input from teachers. But it’s not an effective system.”

Li has assured community members that the board harbors good intentions, contrary to how many people perceive their actions. “To a lot of people, it looks like the board kind of just brushed these concerns aside and approved the plan anyway,” Li said. “But I know that the board isn’t nefariously ignoring people. Some of the board members mentioned that they’ve gotten emails from families who thanked them for voting for the reopening plan. They probably know students who are struggling with distance learning. So there are two sides to the story.”

School board representatives also meet with the superintendent before every board meeting to briefly discuss agenda items, which helps with communication as school board representatives can more easily relay that information to the students. “I meet with both of them before every board meeting, so I have my own personal meetings with them,” Austin said. “They send me emails on the side and between meetings as well.”

The representatives, according to Li, rarely receive email replies. “We’re not included too much in district decisions,” Li said. “Over the summer, [Palo Alto High School Board Representative Mehta Atla] and I sent an email to the district asking how we can be involved in the school reopening discussion, and we never got a reply; I sent them an email a couple of days ago, asking about school reopening, and they also never got back to me.”

Open letters and open forums

Shortly after the school board meeting on Nov. 10, an open letter urging the board to reconsider reopening plans was written and signed by the majority of the English, social studies and special education departments from Gunn, indicating the widespread backlash the district and board received from the community. Paly students also wrote an open letter, gaining almost 700 signatures from students, parents, staff, community members and alumni.

Austin likened the staff response, including the open letter, to that of the elementary school teachers, both acknowledging the letter and raising a question as to how long its contents would hold true. “I am not dismissing that teachers wrote the letter and that they did that in unity,” Austin said. “However, we had almost exactly the same thing with elementary. And with a full staff, we’re back with 2,100 students and the teachers are overwhelmingly happy to stick with their students and do a great job with it.”

Open letters are one of many ways to be heard by the district and board, along with sending emails to board members and speaking out during the open forum. However, Dauber uses more than just the voices from open forums to shape his view on policies. “The emails that we receive, staff recommendations—it’s all part of the mix [of] how I’m understanding a situation,” he said. “It doesn’t mean that I’m going to decide to vote with the majority of the people in an open forum. I also understand that it’s not representative of the community.”

Austin also challenged whether opinions shared in the open forum represented the entire community. “Nobody speaks at a board meeting because they’re happy with the decision that you’re getting ready to make,” he said. “They’re silent; they might send you a text message or an email to just you, but they don’t come and speak. The only people that ever speak in board meetings are overwhelmingly in opposition to whatever it is you’re proposing. In context, we have 66,000 residents. We have 20,000 parents and we have 2,000 employees. So, while 50 speakers might sound like everybody’s against something, that’s only 50 speakers.”

Looking ahead

Moving forward, Li believes that the district can improve in the way they administer their surveys, both in question wording and publicizing the survey itself. “I think that some of the questions were worded with some sort of bias within them,” Li said. “They can improve publicity for it to get more responses so they can get a larger sample size. That’s another thing with transparency.”

Despite recent controversy, Palo Alto Educators Association President Teri Baldwin holds that there has always been a strong, healthy relationship between the district and the union. “Disagreements are part of a natural working process, rather than being an item of contention,” she said. “I continue to meet with the Superintendent monthly, and with both the Deputy Superintendent and Director of Human Resources weekly. We keep the lines of communication open, and we try to solve issues before they become big problems.”

Powell sees recent events not only as a frustrating ordeal, but also a time for growth. “I understand why [communication] is not happening as quickly as I’d like,” she said. “But I’m hopeful that, moving forward, the district can focus on fixing their communication structure, regardless of what the changing circumstances are.”