A tentative agreement to increase salaries and end a contract impasse was reached by the San Mateo-Foster City Elementary School District and its teachers’ union, it was announced Thursday.
The agreement will become effective upon ratification by members of the San Mateo Elementary Teachers Association and the school board. It covers the district’s 625 teachers and support staff and will be in effect through June 30, 2019. Details include salary increases that include 5 percent retroactive to July 1, 2016, and 3 percent retroactive to July 1, 2017, along with increases to both teacher stipends and to the hourly pay rate for supplemental work, according to a district press release.
SMETA President Julie MacArthur expressed gratitude for the support of the parent community during negotiations.
“I am pleased that the negotiations have concluded and that we were able to work together to make budgeting choices that reflect the important work teachers do and that recognizes their value to the community,” she said in the press release.
The two sides were deadlocked in negotiations and union officials said they had gone 500 days without a new deal when there were several demonstrations at schools and heated moments at board meetings. With negotiations at an impasse, teachers suggested a strike could be in order as the two sides entered fact-finding with a negotiator, though that process has ended with this deal.
Board President Chelsea Bonini said the district is pleased to have reached the agreement prior to entering the lengthy fact finding process.
Recommended for you
“The well-being and success of our students, with their classroom teachers and site staff as their most valuable resources, is always our primary focus. We could not be happier to resolve these negotiations before the new board takes office,” she said.
The board will have three faces at its next meeting as Noelia Corzo, Rebecca Hitchcock and Shara Watkins won election in November as three trustees — Bonini, Ed Coady and Lory Lorimer Lawson opted not to run for re-election. The teacher contract was a hot topic on the campaign.
While district officials made clear they were experiencing a $10 million budget deficit, exacerbated by the loss of the $7 million generated by a parcel tax that voters did not renew, teachers had suggested that some of the $14 million in reserve could have been used for raises they contend were necessary to live in this high-cost area.
District teachers earned an average of $75,328 in the last fiscal year, according to the state Department of Education. Teachers in the neighboring Burlingame Elementary School District earned an average of $74,433, while teachers in the Belmont-Redwood Shores Elementary School District earned an average of $80,855.
In the press release, district officials said the final agreement is a product the two sides working together to reach mutually acceptable compromises on difficult issues.
“The district and SMETA look forward to continuing to work together to address the needs of the students,” the release said.
Now let's make sure that these additional costs to the school district are not passed onto the taxpayer. The school district will undoubtedly be asking for another tax increase as soon as they can. Be sure to vote NO. We will soon be feeling the effects of living in our high tax state when we are no longer able to take advantage of the loophole of writing off our state and local taxes against our federal taxes.
Why not just an 8 percent raise? Actually ends up being 8.15 percent the way it is structured. Not to mention the extra cost of retroactive pay and increased pension liability, not fair to the 75 teachers hired this year. Teacher retention was cited as a major problem yet this agreement does not in anyway encourage teachers to stay. The Board should require the retroactive pay be tied to staying in the district for however long the contract is. Otherwise we are simply paying teachers to leave and leaving less money for those who stay. Odd how during the election no one was willing to make a decision, but now that it is over, accountability is no longer a topic of discussion.
Correct we will no longer be able to deduct the taxes we pay in our state from our federal taxes all so the top 1% can end up with the biggest tax breaks. I'll pay for the teacher's anytime over that.
San Mateo residents seem to be unaware of the fact that tens of Millions of dollars collected specifically for education by our property taxes are sent to Sacramento and eventually returned to San Mateo just to be put into the general fund - that is correct, educational funds are spent in the general fund. Google "Excess ERAF" for very enlightening details. San Mateo spends less than the state average per pupil and far less than the national average despite having some of the highest property values in the entire nation! How is this even possible? Why has the press not covered this? Actually, there was one story by the Half Moon Bay press but it seems that nobody paid attention or nobody cares. With our high property tax revenue and the massive Excess ERAF payments each year from the State, we should have one of the best funded school systems in the state, yet we are below the state average even when the cost of living in San Mateo is sky high. Parents, please educate yourselves on these shameful antics of our local politicians spending your education dollars on general fund expenses.
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(7) comments
Now let's make sure that these additional costs to the school district are not passed onto the taxpayer. The school district will undoubtedly be asking for another tax increase as soon as they can. Be sure to vote NO. We will soon be feeling the effects of living in our high tax state when we are no longer able to take advantage of the loophole of writing off our state and local taxes against our federal taxes.
About time!
I agree!
Confused. So where does this money come from? Will they run out of their reserves in a few years? The Kalifornia way?
Why not just an 8 percent raise? Actually ends up being 8.15 percent the way it is structured. Not to mention the extra cost of retroactive pay and increased pension liability, not fair to the 75 teachers hired this year. Teacher retention was cited as a major problem yet this agreement does not in anyway encourage teachers to stay. The Board should require the retroactive pay be tied to staying in the district for however long the contract is. Otherwise we are simply paying teachers to leave and leaving less money for those who stay. Odd how during the election no one was willing to make a decision, but now that it is over, accountability is no longer a topic of discussion.
Correct we will no longer be able to deduct the taxes we pay in our state from our federal taxes all so the top 1% can end up with the biggest tax breaks. I'll pay for the teacher's anytime over that.
San Mateo residents seem to be unaware of the fact that tens of Millions of dollars collected specifically for education by our property taxes are sent to Sacramento and eventually returned to San Mateo just to be put into the general fund - that is correct, educational funds are spent in the general fund. Google "Excess ERAF" for very enlightening details. San Mateo spends less than the state average per pupil and far less than the national average despite having some of the highest property values in the entire nation! How is this even possible? Why has the press not covered this? Actually, there was one story by the Half Moon Bay press but it seems that nobody paid attention or nobody cares. With our high property tax revenue and the massive Excess ERAF payments each year from the State, we should have one of the best funded school systems in the state, yet we are below the state average even when the cost of living in San Mateo is sky high. Parents, please educate yourselves on these shameful antics of our local politicians spending your education dollars on general fund expenses.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.