Beliefs & Facts

YCTA Tentative Agreement

posted Sep 19, 2016, 8:09 PM by Yuba City Teachers Association   [ updated Sep 19, 2016, 8:10 PM ]

Yes. It is legal to use LCAP funds for teacher salaries

posted Sep 14, 2016, 9:01 AM by Yuba City Teachers Association   [ updated Sep 14, 2016, 9:14 AM ]


June 10, 2015

Dear County and District Superintendents and Charter School Administrators:

USE OF LOCAL CONTROL FUNDING FORMULA SUPPLEMENTAL AND
CONCENTRATION GRANT FUNDS

The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) adopted in June 2013 offers a dramatically new approach toward funding California schools. It gives power over the vast majority of spending decisions to those in the best position to know the needs and priorities of their districts—local school boards—while also requiring them to get significant input from their communities.

Use of Local Control Funding Formula Supplemental and Concentration Grant Funds for Salary Increases

The California Department of Education (CDE) has been asked under what circumstances it may be permissible for a school district to use supplemental and concentration grant funds apportioned to it pursuant to the LCFF to fund ongoing teacher compensation. Below is a summary of the applicable statutes and regulations and a discussion of the question posed. The Department had previously addressed this issue in a letter sent to the Fresno County Office of Education on April 14, 2015, which may have created some misunderstandings. For clarity, the following supersedes that letter.

Overview of Local Control Funding Formula Legislation

The LCFF was adopted in June 2013 and eliminated the revenue limit funding formula and numerous categorical programs. The formula establishes a target level for state funding based on an equal amount per pupil, with adjustments based on factors described below. The LCFF target represents the amount a district would receive when LCFF is fully funded. Currently, full funding is being phased in over several fiscal years.

The LCFF provides for a “base grant” that provides a school district with a specified amount per unit of average daily attendance based upon the pupils’ grade spans. In addition, the LCFF provides for add-ons to the base grant based on the unduplicated count of pupils enrolled in a district who are low-income, English learners, or foster youth (“unduplicated pupils”) (as defined by California Education Code [EC] Section 42238.02[b]). There is a “supplemental grant” add-on of 20 percent of the base funding for each unduplicated pupil. In addition, when the number of unduplicated pupils exceeds 55 percent of a school district’s enrollment, there is a “concentration grant” add-on of an additional 50 percent of the base amount for each unduplicated pupil in excess of 55 percent. The LCFF legislation required the State Board of Education (SBE) to adopt regulations governing the expenditure of supplemental and concentration grant funds. These funds must be expended in accordance with those regulations, as described more fully below. (EC sections 42238.02[e] and [f] and 42238.07 and 5 California Code of Regulations [CCR] sections 15494 through 15497.5.)

The Local Control Accountability Plan and Expenditure Regulations

The LCFF legislation requires school districts to adopt a Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP). The LCAP is a three-year plan that must be updated annually by July 1. (EC sections 52060[a] and [b] and 52061[a].) The Legislature required the SBE to adopt an LCAP and annual update template that districts are required to use. (EC sections 52060[a], 52061[a], and 52064.) The SBE-approved LCAP and Annual Update Template (LCAP Template) is set forth in 5 CCR Section 15497.5. A district LCAP is required to set forth the district’s annual goals and related specific actions and budgeted expenditures for improving its educational program in eight state priority areas and any locally adopted priority areas. (EC Section 52060[c] and 5 CCR Section 15497.5.) The annual update must include a review of progress on LCAP goals, an assessment of the effectiveness of actions described in the LCAP toward achieving those goals, and a description of changes to the action the district will make as a result of this review. (EC Section 52061[a][2].)

The SBE specified requirements related to expenditures of supplemental and concentration grant funds in 5CCR Section 15496. Under subdivision (a) of this regulation, a district is required to provide evidence in its LCAP to demonstrate how the district will use supplemental and concentration grant funds to support unduplicated pupils, and include an explanation of how expenditure of these funds will meet the district’s goals for its unduplicated pupils in the state priority areas. Such funding must be used to “increase or improve services for unduplicated pupils as compared to services provided to all pupils in proportion to the amount of funds apportioned based on the number and concentration of unduplicated pupils as required by EC Section 42238.07(a)(1).” As required by EC Section 42238.07(b), the SBE expenditure regulations identify conditions under which a district may use supplemental and concentration grant funds on a districtwide basis. Under 5 CCRSection 15496(b), a district may demonstrate it has increased or improved services for unduplicated pupils by using these grant funds to upgrade the entire educational program of the school district, as follows. When a district has an enrollment of unduplicated pupils of 55 percent or more of the district’s total enrollment in the fiscal year for which an LCAP is adopted or in the prior year, districtwide use of funds is permitted. A district making a districtwide expenditure must (1) identify in the LCAP the services that will be funded and provided on a districtwide basis; and (2) describe in the LCAP how such services are principally directed toward and are effective in meeting the district’s goals for its unduplicated pupils in the state and local priority areas. When a district’s enrollment of unduplicated pupils is less than 55 percent of a district’s total enrollment in the fiscal year for which an LCAP is adopted, the district’s LCAP must, in addition to the above, describe how the services to be provided districtwide are the “most effective” use of the funds to meet the district’s goals for its unduplicated pupils in the state and any local priority areas and provide the basis for this determination, including but not limited to any alternatives considered and any supporting research, experience, or educational theory. (5 CCRSection 15496[b][2].)

When a County Superintendent reviews an LCAP for approval, he or she must review any descriptions of districtwide expenditures when determining whether a district has fully demonstrated that it will increase or improve services for unduplicated pupils. (EC Section 52070[d][3] and 5 CCR Section 15497.)

Use of Supplemental and Concentration Funds for Across-the-Board Salary Increases

A district may use supplemental and concentration funds for a general salary increase in a manner consistent with the expenditure regulations and LCAP Template regulations. (5 CCR sections 15496[a] and [b] and 15497.5 [LCAP Template sections 2 and 3].) In order to use supplemental and concentration grant funds for an across-the-board salary increase, or for any other districtwide purpose, a district must demonstrate in its LCAP how this use of the grant funds will increase or improve services for unduplicated pupils as compared to services provided all pupils. This should be in proportion to the increase in supplemental and concentration funds apportioned on the basis of the number and concentration of unduplicated pupils. (5 CCR sections 15496[a] and [b], 15497, and 15497.5 [LCAP Template sections 2 and 3].)

For example, a district may be able to document in its LCAP that its salaries result in difficulties in recruiting, hiring, or retaining qualified staff which adversely affects the quality of the district’s educational program, particularly for unduplicated pupils, and that the salary increase will address these adverse impacts. In this scenario, this district LCAP might specify a goal of increasing academic achievement of its unduplicated pupils and a related area of need for more teachers in the district with experience teaching the district’s curriculum. In such a case, if the district has an enrollment of unduplicated pupils of 55 percent or more of the district’s total enrollment in the fiscal year for which an LCAP is adopted or in the prior year, the district could then identify, as a corresponding service, a reduction of teacher turnover and the retention of experienced classroom teachers, supported by budgeted expenditures from supplemental and concentration grant funds, and describe in the LCAP how this service is principally directed toward and effective in meeting the district’s identified academic achievement goal for its unduplicated pupils. (5 CCR sections 15496, 15497, and 15497.5 [LCAP Template sections 2 and 3].)  As noted above, if the district’s enrollment of unduplicated pupils is less than 55 percent of a district’s total enrollment in the fiscal year for which an LCAP is adopted, the district’s LCAP would have to, in addition to the above, describe how the reduction of teacher turnover and the retention of experienced classroom teachers provided districtwide are the “most effective” use of the funds to meet the district’s goal for its unduplicated pupils, and provide the basis for this determination, including but not limited to any alternatives considered and any supporting research, experience, or educational theory. This is an example and is not intended to be exhaustive or exclusive.

Targeted Salary Increases

Districts may use supplemental and concentration grant funds to provide more targeted salary increases to increase or improve services for unduplicated pupils provided these meet the same legal requirements described above for expenditure of such funds and related documentation in the LCAP. For example, districts could provide salary increases for employees serving predominantly unduplicated pupils or provide increased compensation for a longer instructional day, particularly at schools serving predominantly unduplicated pupils. The district must appropriately document in its LCAP its basis and strategies for use of supplemental and concentration grant funds in keeping with 5 CCR sections 15496(a) and (b) and 15497.5 (LCAP Template sections 2 and 3).

We hope this information is of assistance in developing, adopting, and reviewing district LCAPs and Annual Updates.

If you have any further questions, please contact Jeff Breshears, Administrator, Local Agency Systems Support, by phone at 916-319-0303 or by e-mail at JBreshears@cde.ca.gov.

Sincerely,

Tom Torlakson

CDE-Letter from Superintendent of Schools Tom Torlakson

CONCEPTS from the YUBA CITY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION

posted Sep 13, 2016, 12:29 AM by Yuba City Teachers Association   [ updated Sep 13, 2016, 6:03 PM ]




CONCEPTS from the YUBA CITY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION

9/13/2016

 


Improvements to the salary schedule shall go into effect July 1 for each year to which they pertain. 

In addition to the above increases:

1.       Special Education Teachers will have a multiplier of 1.15% in addition to the salary schedule

2.       Speech and Language Pathologists will have a multiplier of 1.15% in addition to the salary schedule


This concludes bargaining for the 15/16 and 16/17 school year.

 

Restoration of Teaching and Learning

 

1.       YCTA proposes that 2.2% of the ongoing increase for the 2016-2017 school year be used to restore the four (4) instructional student attendance days so that students can access and capture the core curriculum lost due to the 2015-2016 impasse.  The 2016-17 calendar shall be altered to convert the four (4) days of lost instruction to non-work days. The scheduling of the four (4) days shall be determined jointly by the District and the Association.  This means that teachers will work and students will attend the four (4) converted days during the 2016-2017 school year, thereby restoring the 180 instructional days for students and 185 work days for teachers, including the two (2) professional development days already agreed to by the parties for 2016-17.  The increase of 2.2% shall be ongoing on the salary schedule and the student attendance calendar shall remain 180 instructional days and 183 teacher work days for all years following 2016–2017.


2.       All YCTA bargaining unit members who participated in the strike, or did not cross picket lines shall be returned to work in the position filled prior to the strike, without malice, intimidation, reprisal, discrimination, or recrimination either now, or in the future from the Board, any of its administrators or any other of its authorized agents.


3.       No reference to any individual participating in the strike shall be made by any school district official in any regular or special evaluation of any bargaining unit member.  It is further agreed that no evaluation of YCTA bargaining unit members shall reflect, in any way, the employee's participation in the strike.


4.       No reference to any individual’s participation or non-participation in the strike shall be made by any individual in any personnel file of any YCTA bargaining unit member.


5.       No YCTA bargaining unit member shall be disciplined, subjected to malice, intimidation or in any other way be penalized by any school district official or agent by reason of his/her participation in or support of the strike or strike related activities; nor shall any YCTA bargaining unit member be disciplined, nonrenewed, discharged or in any way subjected to any penalty by the school district for his/her failure to report for work following the termination of the strike, if that YCTA bargaining unit member is prevented from reporting for work by court action related to the strike.


6.       No student shall be disciplined, subjected to malice or intimidation or in any other way penalized by any school district official or agent by reason of his/her participation in or support of the strike or strike related activities.


7.          Any allegation or violation of this agreement shall be set down in writing by the person or persons affected and be presented to an impartial arbitrator appointed by the American Arbitration Association. Said arbitrator shall be empowered to take any appropriate action to satisfy the complaint.


Concept for Collaboration

From the

YUBA CITY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION

To the

YUBA CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

 

Collaboration Time


a.       The collaboration teams will be organized as follows: at K-5, by grade level; at 6-8, by content and/or grade level; and at the high school, by department. In addition, as needed, teams may be organized by grade level, subject matter, specific student groups, departments, vertical teams, or horizontal teams, including cross-curricular teams and district-wide content.

b.      Teachers convene in collaboration teams to increase student learning based on classroom teacher selected data. At the first meeting of the year, each team will identify their first objective, as well as their objective for the following meeting. At each subsequent meeting, each team will identify the objective for the following meeting.

c.       Teacher accountability documentation shall take no more than five (5) minutes of meeting time. It shall include a description of the next meeting’s objective. The documentation shall be completed by the end of the meeting, and copies shall be provided to members of the team.

 

Acceptable uses of collaboration shall include:

a.       Strategic Planning

1.      Lesson design and planning, vertical and horizontal

2.      Cross-grade level planning on subject manner

3.      Discussing and establishing behavioral interventions and strategies

b.      Data Analysis

1.      Goal-setting for students based on formative tests

2.      Collaborative scoring of common assessments

c.       Instructional Design

1.      Collaborating on Units of Study preparation

2.      Developing and revising instruction

3.      Differentiated instruction for significant subgroups (such as Special Ed, EL, Foster Youth, etc.)

*Other topics may be established by mutual agreement of unit members and administration.

Collaboration time is not:

a.       Intended for additional staff meetings

b.      Scheduling/conducting other District, Association, or site meetings

c.       Classroom maintenance including making copies, grading classroom specific work, cleaning classroom, etc.

d.      Discussing site/district policies unrelated to instruction

e.       Administratively-imposed assignments or tasks


MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

between

YUBA CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

and

YUBA CITY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION

Professional Development

 

This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is by and between the Yuba City Unified School District (“District”) and the Yuba City Teachers Association (“YCTA”).

The Parties agree that, for the 2016/2017 school year, the District will provide two (2) days of professional development as set forth below.  This MOU, and its provisions, apply only to the professional development days.

1.      Unit members at Albert Powell High School and YCIA shall select two (2) dates which shall be in either the October intersession or the March intersession. 

2.      For all other teachers, the first day shall be August 8, 2016 and the second date shall be April 17, 2016.  Training on these days may focus on:

a.       new curriculum (e.g. ELA for K-8 and Math and Science 6-12).

b.      Refinement of lesson plans related to current training [engage in planning for implementation and develop lesson plans and strategies];

c.       Identification of issues related to the implementation of current training (including additional professional learning) [teachers will identify needs in the areas of resources, training, professional learning and collaboration]; and

d.      Summarization of (b) and (c), above, to provide feedback to administrators (with a copy to YCTA).

3.      The District will offer programs at one or more sites throughout the District.

a.       K-5 Teachers:            by grade level

b.      6-8 ELA and Math:    on a high school site, either as a group or with high school

c.       Secondary Teachers:   by content area

4.      For non-site based employees (e.g.: Psychologists, Counselors, Nurses, itinerant Music Teachers, Speech and Language Therapists, P.E. Specialists): YCTA Bargaining Unit Members within the program will be consulted to develop the program plan.  This shall not preclude them from participation in the site activities.


5.      This shall result in an increase to the salary schedule of 1.1% for the 2016/2017 school year effective July 1, 2016.  This agreement and resulting increase, shall sunset June 30, 2017 unless the parties mutually agree to extend it.







18 Answers about the 2016 Yuba City Teachers Strike-

posted Sep 3, 2016, 4:59 PM by Yuba City Teachers Association   [ updated Sep 8, 2016, 3:52 PM ]

  • The Fight for a Fair and just Contract
  • Unfair Labor Practice Charges
  • The Strike

Q1: What are the issues in the current dispute between YCTA and YCUSD Administration and School Board?

Due to the statewide teacher shortage crisis, teachers are leaving YCUSD for better pay in neighboring districts.  YCTA wants YCUSD to bring teachers’ salaries in line with the statewide average by investing in a salary schedule that will attract and retain qualified teachers for Yuba City students now and in the future.

 

During negotiations for the 2015-16 contract:

 

·         YCTA proposed a 13 percent salary increase for all teachers for the 2015-16 academic year because of the exodus of teachers leaving to neighboring districts for better pay and working conditions.

 

·         YCUSD proposed zero percent, that is, nothing on the salary schedule for 2015-16, with one-time pay for additional hours.  This was despite receiving $42 million in additional state funding and providing YCUSD management salary increases that brought managers to the statewide average. Throughout negotiations, YCUSD misled parents and community members regarding bargaining proposals. The fact is the district’s proposals were all the same “take it or leave it” and “all or nothing” packages. Some items were reworded, and no substantive changes were offered.

 

After the fact-finding process was completed, YCTA still tried to reach an agreement.

 

·         YCUSD refused to offer a reasonable settlement for 2015-16, attempting to bypass 2015-16 completely. 

·         YCUSD emailed YCTA an illegal “package proposal” offering a “take it or leave it” three-year (2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19) conditional successor contract that:

o   Requires teachers to give up on 2015-16 entirely.

o   Requires teachers to waive their legal rights.

o   Proposes extra work without full compensation.

o   Dictates salary increases could be arbitrarily reduced at the district’s discretion.

o   Takes away YCTA’s legal right to bargain.

·         YCTA is committed to resolving negotiations for 2015-16.

 

Q2: Can the YCUSD afford the teacher’s proposal?

Yes.  The Yuba City Unified School District realized a significant increase in its revenue budget over the past few years, thanks to the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF). LCFF provides for base grant funding, and provides to districts like YCUSD with a high number of “Unduplicated Pupils,” defined as English Language Learners, Foster Youth, and students who qualify for free/reduced lunch, additional “supplemental and concentration grant funding.” 

 

YCUSD could easily choose to invest supplemental and concentration grant funding to create a more competitive salary schedule, in an effort to attract and retain more experienced and better qualified teachers that will improve the quality of education students receive and result in improved student achievement.

 

YCUSD’s own financial records show the district ended the 2015-16 year with an unrestricted reserve in their “Estimated Actuals” of over $13.9 million. The cost of a 1 percent increase for YCTA’s nearly 700 teachers is $526,640.  In 2015-16, YCUSD salaries were 13 percent below the statewide average. Therefore, YCTA is requesting a 13 percent increase in an effort to address the pay gap. 

 

A 13 percent increase would only cost the District $6.8 million and would still leave YCUSD with an unrestricted ending balance of just over $7.1 million.  YCTA’s financial analysis of YCUSD annual teacher salary placement costs from 2014-15 to 2015-16, and again from 2015-16 to 2016-17, shows a significant saving to the district.  This cost saving is realized because teacher replacement costs are substantially lower than the cost of experienced veteran teachers leaving YCUSD to work in neighboring districts for higher pay. New teachers should be qualified and have full credentials.

 

Q3: So, what has happened in bargaining in 2015-16?

Last fall, YCUSD management rejected YCTA’s proposals. The parties reached impasse in March 2016 and began mediation. Mediation ended, and the two sides were certified to fact-finding, the final step in the negotiations process under the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA). Since fact-finding ended, YCTA initiated conversations with the YCUSD in an effort to find a way to resolve 2015-16 negotiations.  Unfortunately, no agreement was reached. 

 

Q4:  Why isn’t YCTA willing to accept the YCUSD management’s offer?

YCUSD is attempting to bypass 2015-16 completely. YCUSD’s last illegal “package proposal” offered a “take it or leave it” conditional successor contract that included nothing for 2015-16 (see Q1 above).

 

Q5: Why isn’t the YCUSD management willing to consider YCTA’s proposal?

YCTA is not sure.  YCUSD paid School Services, Inc. to conduct an independent salary analysis that recommended putting more resources into attracting and retaining qualified teachers if the district was having problems attracting and retaining teachers. Attracting and retaining teachers is a YCUSD-identified goal in the district’s Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP).

 

YCUSD is losing in the competition for great teachers to neighboring districts.  Seventy-four (74) great teachers left YCUSD for these districts before the school year started, and the district has been unable to replace them.  YCUSD’s failure to compete has resulted in at least 20 classrooms of students in YCUSD beginning the year without a teacher with at least a preliminary credential.  YCUSD has resorted to interns and other teachers with emergency credentials.  Emergency credentials do nothing to address the urgent problem of attracting and retaining qualified teachers.  This exodus of teachers must be addressed without further delay.

 

YCTA’s proposal is fair, just and affordable.  (See the Q7 LCFF question below.)


Q6: Is YCUSD refusing to invest its resources to support educational excellence?

Yes.  It is unconscionable that YCUSD is inflating unrestricted funds while our students suffer and some of our best teachers leave for better pay in neighboring districts.

 

In 2013-14 the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) established a historic overhaul of California’s school finance system, shifting resources to the state’s neediest students by directing additional funds to districts with high populations of students receiving Free/Reduced Price Meals and/or identified as Foster Youth or English Learners. 

 

Under the LCFF, districts like Yuba City Unified School District (with a more than 70 percent “unduplicated pupil count”) receive much-needed additional resources to provide more for their students and communities.  This great opportunity can help the district attract and retain the highest quality educators possible in the midst of a statewide teacher shortage crisis.

 

 YCUSD BRL/LCFF Increases

2010-11 (BRL)     $63,540,168

2011-12 (BRL)     $63,561,590

2012-13 (BRL)     $64,138,504

2013-14 (LCFF)   $79,629,087

2014-15 (LCFF)   $92,040,540

2015-16 (LCFF)   $106,056,094

2016-17 (LCFF)   $113,288,291

YCUSD BRL/LCFF Increase

since 2010 is 78.3 percent

 YCUSD Total Available Funds

2010-11                $112,131,937

2011-12                $118,231,703

2012-13                $115,462,401

2013-14                $122,466,107

2014-15                $131,211,100

2015-16                $146,821,840

2016-17                $151,792,896

Total Available Funds Increase

since 2010 is 35.4 percent

  

Q7: Since the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) provides increased resources, schools and districts are required to account for how those resources will be spent through their Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP). Did YCUSD identify attracting and retaining teachers as a District goal?

Yes. Under LCFF, the District is required to engage “local stakeholders,” including teachers, parents and community members, and seek input in the development of its Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP). The LCAP identifies priorities on how the district will invest its LCFF including “supplemental and concentration grant” funds. 

 

While YCUSD identified improving student achievement as a district goal, YCUSD did not allocate funds to invest in creating a competitive salary schedule that will attract and retain the best teachers for our students. 

 

YCTA has joined with parents and community members to ask the district to find a way to do what’s right for our students. [Find the LCAP priorities here.]

 

Q8: Is it legal for YCTA teachers to strike?

Yes. After the exhaustion of impasse procedure under the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA), YCTA has the legal right to strike.

 

Q9: Is YCTA planning for a strike?

Yes.  Effective Thursday, September 8, 2016, YCTA members will be on strike.

 

Q10: What does going on strike mean for YCTA teachers?

It means that all teachers, counselors, coaches, nurses, speech and language pathologists, school psychologists and librarians will refrain from teaching and performing any other YCUSD duties for the duration of the strike. YCTA members will walk picket lines, attend rallies, and take other actions to make the strike visible and effective.

 

Q11: Are teachers prepared to strike?

Yes.  YCTA members had record turnout and a 95 percent “yes” strike authorization vote, indicating they are willing to strike for a fair and just settlement that creates a more competitive salary schedule to attract and retain more experienced and better qualified teachers to continue to improve student achievement.

 

Q12: What will happen to students while YCTA teachers are on strike?

Only parents have the right to make decisions for their own children.  Parents have the right to this information from the YCUSD:

1.                   Who is teaching my child today?

2.                   Is the teacher in my child’s classroom credentialed, or are they working on a substitute permit?

3.                   Who is planning the lessons that my child will receive today, and what is that content?

4.                   Who is supervising my child during lunch and recess, and before and after school?

 

Q13: Could teachers’ participation in a strike lead to dismissal or other disciplinary action?

No. In a legal strike, it is unlawful for the YCUSD management to attempt to dismiss or discipline any YCTA member for participating in the strike. It is a violation of state law to attempt to dismiss or discipline an educator for exercising the right to participate in a lawful job action such as a strike.

 

Management has already tried to demoralize teachers in advance of the strike by requiring teachers to turn in keys at the end of the day, even if they’re not done working with students.  Sadly, we’ve heard of intimidation tactics against teachers, parents and education support staff.

 

Based on complaints filed by YCTA, the California Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) issued a legal complaint against the Yuba City Unified School District (YCUSD) alleging that YCUSD violated state law when it adopted a series of board resolutions earlier this summer threatening to discipline employees who exercise their legally protected right to strike.

 

Based on current and past experience, we must be prepared for the superintendent and perhaps other administrators trying to weaken the teachers’ resolve by instilling fear, creating anxiety and encouraging teachers to cross the picket line.

 

Q14: Will teachers be paid while they are on strike?

No.  Teachers are on strike to protect the teachers and our families, to ensure our ability to continue to serve our students, and to provide our students with high-quality teachers to help them succeed academically.

 

As some teachers have pointed out, show us how you spend your money and we will show you what you really care about.  We must remember that teacher working conditions are student learning conditions.

 

Q15: Now that a strike has been called, does YCTA have a strike fund?

Yes.  Supporters can donate to the YCTA Strike Hardship Grant created for YCTA members on strike who may be facing severe financial difficulties.  Donations may be made out to the YCTA; put “Strike Hardship Fund” in the memo. Please mail checks to the YCTA office - 1095 Stafford Way, Suite A, Yuba City, CA  95993.

 

Q16: What might YCUSD do now that a strike has been called?

The district is claiming to have 700 substitutes ready to work during the strike and is offering a wage of $330 per day for each substitute, a wage higher than the District currently pays to some of its own credentialed teachers.  The usual sub pay is $125. YCUSD prefers spending resources fighting teachers, rather than investing in solutions that provide our students with the best teachers possible.

 

Q17: Is YCTA supported by community groups and other unions?

Yes.  It is clear by the expression of support from our parents, local businesses and community members that YCUSD students come first!  Parents, teachers, local community and businesses stand united as stakeholders desiring the best possible education be provided to our students.

 

Q18: Can this be resolved?

Yes. YCTA is committed to reaching a viable resolution with the District for 2015-16.  The teachers of Yuba City remain committed to negotiating in good faith.  We need a partner who is willing to do the same.  



Yuba City Teachers expose the smoke and mirrors behind YCUSD's latest "supposal"

posted Sep 1, 2016, 10:36 PM by Yuba City Teachers Association   [ updated Sep 3, 2016, 5:14 PM ]

Salary Comparisons

posted Sep 1, 2016, 10:32 PM by Yuba City Teachers Association   [ updated Sep 3, 2016, 5:01 PM ]



MJUSD vs. YCUSD salary comparsion


See comparison below to 13 surrounding districts

1-6 of 6