Fremont teachers negotiate one-year contract

The Fremont school district and teachers union have reached a tentative one-year agreement on concessions to help the district balance its 2010-11 budget. The district is facing a $16.2 million deficit.

Highlights include:

  • K-3 class sizes jumping from 20 students to 28.  
  • Restoring elementary science, music and physical education to 50 percent. 
  • Six unpaid furlough days, equivalent to a 3.21 percent pay cut. Teachers would teach three fewer days and not work three noninstructional days. 
  • A 3.21 percent pay cut for substitute, adult school and preschool teachers, with a similar reduction in stipends for coaches and advisers of clubs and other extracurriculars. 
  • An optional spring open house, voted on by the faculty at each school site.

Before this week’s tentative agreement, the teachers union distributed a flier to parents, comparing the union’s proposal to that of the district’s as of mid-June. Steve Betando, FUSD’s assistant superintendent of human resources, would neither confirm nor deny whether the information from the union was accurate. But according to the flier, here’s what the two sides had proposed:

Teachers Association’s Proposal:

  • 6 furlough days
  • 24:1 Class sizes in K-3
  • 80% maintenance of elementary specialists (PE, science, music, computers)
  • 7-12 class size maximums

District’s Proposal:

  • 9 furlough days
  • 3.5% salary reduction (in addition to furlough days)
  • 30:1 class sizes in K-3
  • 20% maintenance of elementary specialists
  • 7-12 class size “goals” – larger than current contract

Linh Tat


  1. That’s funny…16 million deficit? When they have a SURPLUS of 11-12 million? Interesting. FUSD is a bank!

  2. I don’t think it is funny, my kids have been having their teachers cut. Why do you say they have a surplus? Everything I’ve been seeing shows that we have had state funding cut over the last 2 years.

  3. They don’t have a surplus, they have reserves – The state requires some reserves, so schooling can continue in the event of a fiscal emergency. FUSD has larger reserves than other local districts, and much larger than required. FUSD, and all school districts, need reserves – to be used when faced with dire cuts. These are dire cuts, and reserves should be dipped into to make sure our students have access to the best education possible, even with the state’s financial situation.

  4. If it gets worse next year, which is likely, they’ll look like geniuses for taking a measured approach to cutting back expenses while maintaining some reserves.

  5. There’s not much in the regions economic pipeline, and it certainly can get worse.

    And while I think teachers are the few city employees who earn every penny, a furlough day is not a pay cut. The pay rate remains the same, the work available changes.

    Cities do not have access to income taxes. People are spending less, the state is taking more and property assessments are being shaved for the third year in a row. Whoever has a plan for continuing the status quo, please come forward. In lieu will be these extend and pretend patches to a structural problem.

  6. As far as teachers “earning every penny”- that Bozo who writes the column in the paper actually a teacher in our schools? If he’s “earning every penny” he gets then I think we all might want to make sure were on the same page as to what a teacher is paid to do.
    When I read this guy’s column I often think that maybe he should be paying the kids for giving him the opportunity to unload his myriad personal garbage all over their helpless preteen brains. What’s that simpleton’s name??
    You know the guy, blonde, with an expression that conveys his column’s gist-that of a man afraid to learn, lost and losing his way further by trying to cover up the evidence found in his own judgmental words that suggest he himself feels he’s lived the life of a coward taking the easy route, who hates what he does, and is lousy at it, by putting down the students he fails.

    What’s his naaa- JAIME RICHARDS!
    Is he for real?

  7. Please note, I agree with Marty in #5 above, maybe for the first time. Our problem is that we have not yet figured out how to fund government since 1978 when Prop 13 passed. We have patched and patched until there is no patching material available. This fall we will have tax measures from schools and probably one of our cities, all trying to patch, all probably worthy, but none of them fix the problem.

    We elect people to the legislature, many of them from local government, and they forget from whence they came. We continue to address the patches with initiatives, which only seem to make the system worse. There is so much wrong that a comprehensive overhaul of our tax/revenue situation must happen, but the legislature bogs down every year and passes the burden onto our kids. And they play musical chairs as they run for another office because of term limits. Fixing the system ought to be the priority of the legislature. Maybe we should float an initiative that says the legislature shall pass no bills until they have solved the government funding problem and that, until they solve it, they can collect no political contributions. Maybe we should add to that, that after a certain period, maybe 3 months, if the problem isn’t solved, 25% of the legislator’s campaign fund is taken by the state, another 25% in six months, and so on, until their campaign fund is broke. Then, they can compete with the challengers with no money. We need to fix the problem!

  8. Prop 13 is an interesting scapegoat.

    While Prop 13 has definately placed a limit on the growth in assessed property taxes, it does nothing to prohibit our leaders from returning to the polls to ask for more. . . . and it certainly has NOTHING to do with whether or not a given electorate approves such initiatives.

    I suggest politicians stop whining about the problems resulting from Prop 13 and start focussing on what terms will compel taxpayers to part with more of their ever DECREASING disposable income dollars. . . .

    A really great start would be by cutting personal incomes and benefits while simultaneously elevating expectations for productivity in the municipal sector(s).

    Bring these public servants in line with the same kinds of massive losses in earnings, benefits and income which have been imposed on the private sector for MANY YEARS.

  9. I agree with box. I think the three of us, Gus included should all hug in a masculine way to avoid arousing Fremont Lifer.

    I’d support a hard look at Prop 13 property assessments, perhaps increasing the allowable appreciation to 3-4% and even sticking it to the boomers with a rate jack. I won’t budge on the supermajority.

    But, I’ll tell you this- I will never vote to ease the hurdles to raise taxes until public employees are forced to concede a whopper and unions as a whole are hamstrung by law. Because in the end, one can never underestimate the Democrats willingness to sell our state’s future down the river for a clicks of political gain.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *