It’s easy for the voice of teachers to be confused for the voice of the Clark County Education Association. As the bargaining unit for all teachers, it’s easier for many people to accept that the CCEA’s voice represents all teacher voices. However, there are times when teachers need to make sure that the voice the public hears isn’t only the voice of the bargaining unit.

I am not a member of the CCEA. As a 17-year veteran of the Clark County School District, I’ve learned that there are many times the CCEA has not represented my beliefs. Equally as upsetting is the fact that the Clark County School District has demonstrated that educators are not their highest priority. The latest contract negotiation between the CCSD and the CCEA has reaffirmed for me that sometimes they both get it wrong. 

Many commercials on television and reports on local news stations have chronicled the disparities between the CCSD and CCEA proposals. The CCEA has been demanding a 10 percent raise in the current year’s contract, and a subsequent 8 percent raise in the following year for all teachers. They also have made demands for Title I and special education raises. The crux of the message from the CCEA has been that these raises will attract and retain teachers in Clark County.

The CCSD counteroffer to the CCEA includes a 9 percent raise in the first year and, as of Oct. 2, an 8.4 percent in the second year for all teachers — and a one-time evaluation of where teachers are on the pay scale versus where they should be based on their level of education and years of experience. (This formula only would apply to those teachers hired since 2016.)

For those who are interested, there are different comparison charts that have been produced by the CCEA and the CCSD.

Negotiations have been tumultuous, and both sides have erred. CCEA’s continuous demand for 10 percent in year one and 8 percent in year two are based on lofty goals also fought for in the Legislature. The intent of lobbying in Carson City was to make sure funding was secured to provide these raises for educators in the state. They indeed secured more funding for K-12 education in Nevada and need to be congratulated for their hard-fought gains.

However, the way that funding was allocated does not mean the CCSD will perpetually receive that money. That very real issue is why the CCSD has been wary of granting the full demands of the CCEA — and why it has demanded the same “sunset” clause that has been agreed to by other school districts in Nevada. In response to CCSD’s caution and stated reservations, the CCEA has negotiated with the CCSD like a petulant child demanding what they think they deserve without acknowledging the valid financial concerns.

Rather than accept a sunset clause, the CCEA has repeatedly stomped its feet and paraded lawmakers in front of cameras without acknowledging that CCSD’s position is untenable if the monies aren’t sure to be renewed by the Legislature. Staging “work actions” that, according to local judges, include organizing illegal strikes, and disrupting CCSD board meetings are akin to juvenile temper tantrums. The politicians who have spoken on behalf of the CCEA cannot guarantee that the money in question will be there in the future, so the CCSD does have a valid concern about the sustainability of these demands.

On Oct. 2, the CCSD offered another set of figures that set the cost of the overall package at less than six-tenths of a percent from what the CCEA was demanding. And what did CCEA do? It came back with a demand for 11.875 percent in year one and 8 percent in year two — refusing to treat CCSD’s offer as valid because it wasn’t presented in a bargaining meeting, and refusing to meet further until an arbitrator takes up the case. So: The CCEA now refuses to negotiate, and has merely made a series of increasing demands that could hurt the current financial well-being of many teachers. 

This seems an apt time to remind the CCEA to be professional. Disrupting CCSD board meetings is counterproductive to the goal of negotiation; if students disrupted classes the way teachers disrupted meetings, these same teachers would be screaming for their immediate removal from the classroom.

Additionally, a judge recently determined that the CCEA was almost certainly behind the mass “sickouts” that disrupted education at multiple schools. Two judges have now determined that the CCEA’s actions amounted to violations of state law that forbids public employee strikes. The CCEA stubbornly refuses to accept these judgments, though, and has vowed to continue legal appeals to attempt to overturn these decisions.

If I were in leadership at the CCSD, I would’ve declared an impasse just to get a break from these antics.

That’s not to say that the CCSD can be held blameless. There have been district errors that have legitimately frustrated teachers. For example, after the demonstrations at the “Java with Jara” event in Summerlin, Dr. Jara insisted that his bargaining would be done at the bargaining table, but then attempted to sow seeds of discontent by emailing teachers directly on July 18 and July 31. On Sept. 22, he emailed all students because some students were walking out in support of teachers. And most recently, he issued his latest offer to the teachers through a local news outlet.

Yes, the proposals submitted by Dr. Jara have progressively gotten better, but the growing strain this has put on teachers has increased tempers at rallies and board meetings.

The most jarring example of how frustrating this has been for teachers is to look at the salary schedules based on years of experience. A teacher hired in 2016 who has a master’s degree and seven years of experience would earn a salary of $74,521, according to the proposal set forth by Dr. Jara. However, a teacher hired in 2010 with a master’s degree and 13 years of service would have a current salary of $71,421. According to the proposal, the second teacher would not get a look-back adjustment. This very real scenario has me, an experienced teacher, angry about salary and benefits. The final straw for me was seeing members of other bargaining units receive raises while offers to the teachers were woefully inadequate in comparison.

For now, as a teacher, I am trying to focus on the needs of students and the content I need to deliver, but the realities of the world outside of these issues merits consideration. The pause on student loans has ended and the lingering effects of post-pandemic inflation and the rising costs of utilities have resulted in increased costs that exceed the meager step increases teachers are regularly afforded (about $1,500 a year). Even these meager step increases are on hold as we await the decision of an arbitrator.

Combined, these forces are demanding that I answer a foreboding question, “Can I continue to wait for this impasse to be resolved, or should I leave education to find a job with more financial certainty?” 

Yes, of course I would love a raise of 10 percent this year followed by a raise of 8 percent next year. That would be a significant improvement to my financial situation — but I also know that negotiations rely on both sides giving something in order to find a common ground.

To this point, I have not seen the CCEA give anything, so I find its negotiation tactics to be obtuse and, in some cases, misguided (alienating parents whose kids are impacted by these actions). Simultaneously, seeing the CCSD declare an impasse is disheartening, as too many teachers are in desperate need of raises, and the process of arbitration will take far longer than some of us can abide.

Unfortunately, as long as the CCSD and CCEA refuse to act in the best interests of the kids who attend our schools, teachers such as myself will continue to look for other options outside of education. Inevitably, the educational needs of our learners will suffer as more teachers leave.

Both sides need to return to the bargaining table with a renewed focus on professionalism and reality. The CCSD needs to retract its declaration of an impasse and actually meet with the CCEA at a bargaining table. The CCEA needs to negotiate and accept that perpetually increasing its demands is the antithesis of negotiating.

The offer produced Oct. 2 by the CCSD should be argued at a negotiating session, and the CCEA should accept the sunset clause — if for no other reason than to demonstrate that the funding that was secured for this biennium needs to be a perpetual fight that is shared by all bargaining units and school districts. All teachers deserve a resolution that is negotiated and fair, and we shouldn’t have to wait for a third party to give it to us.

Joel Broome is a 17-year veteran of the Clark County School District and currently teaches social studies at Centennial High School.