Davis Joint Unified School District

While the District settled negotiations with CSEA and other employees in September 2025, the District and DTA began negotiations for the 2025-26 school year on Friday, February 27, 2026 after DTA sunshined their interests to the DIstrict on February 19, 2026.

The District has presented the following proposals:

Proposal #1 Article VI: Hours of Employment (2.27.26)
The District proposal adds TK language and provides accurate instructional minutes for the shortened elementary day.

Proposal #1 Article VII: Work Year (2.27.26)
The District’s proposal adds one day to the teacher/elementary salary schedule for District-directed Professional Development (PD).  The PD day has been offered over the past four years via MOU (on a voluntary basis)  and the proposal would make the day a permanent part of the salary schedule.  It also adds five days to the Special Education Teacher salary schedule in order to prepare IEPs at a glance for general education teachers and to complete other case management duties.

Proposal #1 Article XIII: Extra-Duty Compensation (2.27.26)
The District’s proposal moves Lacrosse from Class 2 and 3 to Class 1 and 2 stipend.  It also adds the High School Musical Director to Class 1 stipend since this had inadvertently been left out of the article during 2024-25 negotiations.

Proposal #1 Article XIV: Salary and Benefits (2.27.26)
The District’s proposal includes a total compensation and benefits increase of 2.75%, despite a COLA from the state of California of 2.3%, which includes  a 2.20% salary increase and an increase to benefits caps of $810 to single only, $220 to +1 and $220 to family in addition to adding one day to the teacher/elementary counselor salary schedule and adding five days to the special education teacher salary schedule. In order to provide  this salary increase the district made $700,000 in program reductions for the 2026-27 school year.

Proposal #1 MOU: Revised Mental Health Therapist Job Description (2.27.26)
The District proposes updating the Mental Health Therapist Job Description in order to broaden this position to include therapists who work with general education students in addition to those who work with students who receive special education services.   

DTA has presented the following proposals:
Proposal #1 Article XXII: Association Rights (2.27.26)
This proposal adds in language from AB119 which had previously been in an MOU between DTA and the District.

Proposal #1 Article XXXIII: Davis School for Independent Study (2.27.26)
This proposal reduces student caseload from 30 students to 28 students for secondary teachers.

In addition the teams discussed interest in removing Appendix C from the contract which provides Davis School for Independent Study Layoff Provisions.  The teams also discussed interest in presenting an MOU for a Pilot program to add a Homeroom to the bell schedule for Harper Junior High School.  Interest was mutual in both of these items and they will be presented at a later date.  (2.26.27)
The DTA and District negotiations teams meet again on March 12, 2026.

The District and DTA met to continue negotiations on Thursday, March 12, 2026.

The District presented the following proposals:

Proposal #1 Article IX: Reassignment and Transfer (3.12.26)

The District’s proposal provides updated language about employee seniority and adds a definition for break in service.  It also adds tie-breaker language for employee transfers.  

Proposal #2 Article XXII: Association Rights (3.12.26)

The District accepted most of DTA’sP Proposal #1 with a few deletions of information that is not required by AB119 and would create additional work for Personnel and Fiscal staff.

DTA presented the following proposals:

Proposal #2 Article VI: Hours of Employment (3.12.26)

DTA proposed new language to increase elementary prep time, to provide Short Term Independent Study compensation for secondary teachers, and added language for elementary fall conference week that had previously been in an MOU between DTA and the District.

Proposal #2 Article VII: Work Year (3.12.26)

DTA rejected the District's proposal to add one day to the teacher/elementary counselor salary schedule for professional development and added language that gave special education teachers five optional work days in addition to five mandatory days.

Proposal #1 Article XI: Class Size (3.12.26)

DTA proposed adding class size caps of 45 for secondary physical education teachers and caseload limits for special education inclusion teachers.  Both include compensation for overages.

Proposal #1 Article XXV: Development of Programs for Special Education Pupils (3.12.26)

DTA proposed language to specify the number of students who receive resource and extension needs services in general education classes.

 The DTA and District negotiations teams meet again on April 3, 2026.

The District and DTA met to continue negotiations on Friday, April 3, 2026.

The District presented the following proposals:

Proposal #3 Article VI: Hours of Employment (4.3.26)

The District provided clarifying language related to elementary prep minutes and fall conferences.  

The District did not accept DTA’s language to add additional prep time to elementary teachers when students are with a supervising certificated staff member such as an art teacher, music teacher, or librarian.  This language would create different amounts of prep time across sites since not all sites have been able to employ a fully certificated art and music teacher.  It is important that elementary teacher prep be standardized throughout the district.  

The District also did not accept DTA’s proposal to pay elementary and secondary teachers for every STIS packet that they created regardless of student completion.  Since the STIS process does not create new revenue, it only offsets lost revenue due to lower ADA, payment of $10 per day needs to come from the recouped ADA which requires the student to complete the work.  However, due to the additional teacher time to create individualized STIS packets, the District added language to encourage elementary teachers to use standardized units of study that are applicable to all students within the same grade level.  In addition, the District presented an MOU -STIS Work Packet Creation (4.3.26) to create a process for teachers to receive extra-duty pay for developing standardized units that can be used by all teachers throughout the district.  

Proposal #2 MOU - Revised Mental Health Therapist Job Description (4.3.26)

The District updated the Education and Experience section in the proposal presented 2.27.26 to reflect licensing requirements for mental health therapists.   

DTA presented the following proposals:

Proposal #1 MOU - Elementary Combo Class Support (4.3.26)

Proposal #1 MOU - Special Education Teacher Job Description (4.3.26)

Proposal #1 MOU - Extended Time DSHS and DVHS (4.3.26)

Proposal #2 Article IX: Reassignment and Transfer (4.3.26)

Proposal #2 Article XIII: Extra-Duty Compensation (4.3.26)

The District accepted DTA’s proposal.

Proposal #2 Article XIV: Salary and Benefits (4.3.26)

Proposal #3 Article XXII: Association Rights (4.3.26)

The District accepted DTA’s proposal.

In addition, DTA accepted the District's proposal to remove Appendix C from the  collective bargaining agreement.  This provides DSIS teachers the same layoff rights as other district teachers. 

 The DTA and District negotiations teams meet again on Thursday, April 23, 2026.

This message is meant to provide you with factual and relevant information regarding DTA/DJUSD negotiations, which took place on Thursday, April 23, 2026. 

The District accepted the DTA proposal to continue the MOU - Elementary Combo Class Stipend.  

The District also presented the following proposals: Article IX: Reassignment and Transfer (Proposal #3)
MOU: Harper Junior High School Homeroom Pilot 2026-27 (Proposal #1)

DTA did not present any proposals.

The District remains committed to continuing the employee compensation conversation and as such will be Sunshining Article XIV Salary and Benefits for 2026-27 at the next scheduled board meeting.  

The DTA and District negotiations teams meet again on May 1, 2026.

This message is to inform you of relevant information regarding DTA negotiations, which took place on Friday May 1, 2026.

The Board of Education has committed more than 120% of new revenues for 2025-26 and 2026-27 to employee compensation totaling 6.1% in total compensation despite a cost of living adjustment (COLA) from the state of 4.71% (2.3% in 25-26 and 2.41% in 26-27).

On May 1, 2026, the District provided DTA with a Tentative Agreement Proposal #1 for the 2025-26 and 26-27 school years, which includes a 5.75% salary increase and an increase to Benefits caps that provides $828 to single only, $400 to +1 and $400 to Family. The 5.75% salary increase is on-going for all certificated employees, allowing consistent compensation growth across the board. Since available funding is fully allocated to support this commitment, the additional requests from DTA will need to be explored in future year negotiations.

Finding Balance in times of Uncertainty
As the District continues to decline in enrollment, we will need to continue to find a balance among our district’s priorities of improving employee compensation, maintaining our excellent educational programs and remaining fiscally solvent. This challenge is only going to intensify in coming years as the District continues to decline in enrollment.

The Difficult Road Ahead
Our most recent demographics report presented to the Board earlier this month, projected DJUSD enrollment at 8166 for the 2026-27 school year. The chart from that report is shown below:



Unfortunately, as of May 1, 2026, there are only 8046 students enrolled in DJUSD for 2026-27 school year (8239 enrolled in 25-26). Between May 1st and the start of school, the District typically sees only a small number of new enrollments, averaging around 30 students. That means a year-over year decline of nearly 170 students (primarily at the Elementary level), a much faster escalation in student enrollment decline than projected, and this is on top of the fact that DJUSD has already declined by nearly 350 students since 2019-20.

In order to prepare, the table below outlines what the District will need to do to make necessary reductions if the current bargaining proposal is accepted and enrollment declines at this new pace:

	25-26	26-27	27-28	28-29
Enrollment	8,239	8,046	7,946	7,846
LCFF COLA	2.3%	2.41%***	3.06***	3.34%***
Actual/Projected Funds for compensation/inflation mitigation	2.75%	3.35%	3.06%****	3.34%****
Annual Reduction Target	$2.0M*	$700K**	$4.0M	$4.2M
Unrestricted Reserve %	6.61%	4.99%	4.14%	4.11%

* Reductions that were already made for 25-26

** Planned reductions for 26-27 school year

*** Currently projected COLA provided from the State of California (Governor’s January Budget)

**** Any compensation increases for 27-28 or 28-29 school years would need to be agreed upon in collective bargaining.

There is no easy path forward; there are only tradeoffs between the priorities of employee compensation, educational programs and fiscal solvency. In the best case scenario, if enrollment ends up being better than expected in any given year, the District will not need to make as many reductions. However, whether this proposal is accepted or not, the District is preparing to make significant year-over-year reductions starting next year, as it is clear that enrollment numbers will continue to decline without a substantial change to the conditions creating these enrollment challenges.

In addition to the District’s Tentative Agreement Proposal, the District presented the following:

Proposal #1 - MOU Optional District-Directed Professional Development Day (5.1.26)
The District’s proposal provides one day of District-directed professional development for teachers prior to the first day of school. The MOU is for 2026-27 and 2027-28.
DTA accepted this proposal.

Proposal #2 - MOU Extended Time (5.1.26)
The District provided a counter proposal to DTA’s MOU which covers 2025-26, 2026-27, and 2027-28

Proposal #2 - MOU Special Education Teacher Job Description (5.1.26)
The District included Preschool Special Education Teachers in this job description. DTA accepted this proposal.

Proposal #1 - MOU Health Benefits Committee (5.1.26)
The District proposes creating a Health Benefits Committee to provide the District and associated bargaining groups with advisory information on cost effective health benefit options if the District left the CalPERS medical benefit pool.

DTA Presented the following proposals:

Proposal #2 - MOU STIS Elementary Work Packet Creation (5.1.26)

Proposal #1- Appendix C (new): Discipline Short of Dismissal (5.1.26)

Proposal #3 - MOU Revised Mental Health Therapist Job Description (5.1.26)

Proposal #3 - MOU Extended Time (5.1.26)
This was a counter to the District’s proposal presented 5.1.26.

Proposal #4 Article VI: Hours of Employment (5.1.26)

Proposal #3 Article IX: Reassignment and Transfer (5.1.26)
The District accepted DTA’s proposal.

Proposal #3 Article XI: Class Size (5.1.26)

Proposal #4 Article XIV: Salary and Benefits (5.1.26)
The District will be providing information in the coming days on how this proposal would impact the District’s finances.

Proposal #3 Article XXV: Development of Programs for Special Education Pupils (5.1.26)

This message is to inform you of relevant information regarding the cost of DTA proposals that were presented Friday, May 1, 2026. 

As mentioned last week, the Board of Education has committed more than 120% of new revenues for 2025-26 and 2026-27 to employee compensation totalling 6.1% in total compensation despite a cost of living adjustment (COLA) from the state of 4.71% (2.3% in 25-26 and 2.41% in 26-27). 

The DTA proposal has a total cost equivalent of 14.5% in total compensation over the 2025-26 and 2026-27 school years. As part of our fiduciary responsibility, the District must cost out any proposal from the association to determine if the District can afford the proposal. This process is guided by a law, commonly referred to as, AB 1200 - County Office of Education Fiscal Oversight, which defined a system of fiscal accountability for school districts and county offices of education to prevent bankruptcy. The law requires districts to do multiyear financial projections, identify sources of funding for substantial cost increases, such as employee raises, and make public the cost implications of such increases before approving employee contracts. 

The AB 1200 analysis of the DTA proposal is below:

* Reductions that were already made for 25-26

** Planned reductions for 26-27 school year

*** Additional reductions needed in the 26-27 school year, any reductions not made would put the district into a qualified or negative budget status (depending on the amount) and would need to be reduced in the 27-28 school year.

**** Currently projected COLA provided from the State of California (Governor’s January Budget)

***** Any compensation increases for 27-28 or 28-29 school years would need to be agreed upon in collective bargaining.

Under this DTA Proposal, If $5.7M in reductions are not made during the 2026-27 school year, the reserve level could be as low as -0.8%. If the District’s reserve level goes below 3% in any year, the County will assign a fiscal oversight agent. If the District’s reserve level goes below 0%, the District may need a state loan and there is the potential the District will go into state receivership. We understand the pressures all employees are under with the rising costs of housing, health care and other expenses, and we must continue to work within the financial restraints of the District. 

As you can see, this proposal requires an additional $5.7M in reductions that would need to occur during the 2026-27 school year; as the proposal came to the District after the March 15 reduction deadline when the District could have reduced expenses to increase compensation. In addition, $4.7M in reductions would be needed in 2027-28 and an additional $2.9M in 2028-29. This is a total of $13.3M in reductions between 2026-2028, leaving the District with only the state required minimum reserve or below to deal with any unexpected fluctuations in enrollment or other unforeseen issues. 

In comparison, the District’s proposal, as outlined in the May 1, 2026 communication, requires $8.2M in reductions between 2026-28, leaving a very modest 4.1% reserve level in future years.  An additional reduction of approximately $5M that would be required with this DTA Proposal is roughly equivalent to 6% of the entire unrestricted general fund, and equates to approximately 50 certificated FTE. 

If the  DTA Proposal were to be accepted, it would not leave any additional dollars to improve compensation for any other employee groups. 

Finding Balance in times of Uncertainty

As was stated in my last message, as the District continues to decline in enrollment significant reductions in expenditures are coming and coming soon. We will need to continue to find a balance among our district’s priorities of improving employee compensation, maintaining our educational programs and remaining fiscally solvent.  There is no easy path forward; there are only tradeoffs between the priorities of employee compensation, educational programs and fiscal solvency. 

The negotiations team will be meeting again May 15, 2026 to continue negotiations and our hope is that we can reach agreement before May 21st, so that staff can receive their retro payments as soon as possible and pay increases can be set for the start of the year.