Dueling Statements Emerge as Teacher Contract Talks Pause for Summer

Stalled contract talks between the Bedford School Committee and the Bedford Education Association have gone public.

After months of bargaining sessions behind closed doors, the two sides this week issued statements reflecting their respective positions.

The current contract expires on June 30, but that date will come and go without a settlement. The district has said talks are at an “impasse” and will invite a mediator to engender progress. The union chose the word “stalemate,” and does not support the involvement of a mediator.  

Statements by both sides celebrated the agreement reached last week between the district and the education support professionals represented by the BEA.

But the district version, signed by School Committee Chair Sheila Mehta-Green, acknowledged, “Work remains, however, in our shared mission of putting forth a new contract for our teachers.” And the BEA expressed “profound disappointment with the ongoing negotiations.”

“The BEA communicated earlier in the negotiations process that bargaining could not continue over the summer,” said Davis School teacher and BEA Vice President Pat Flaherty-Dawson on Tuesday morning, due to schedule conflicts and provisions in the association’s bylaws.

In a statement emailed to parents and staff on Monday afternoon, the School Committee provided details of its current offer: a three-year cost-of-living adjustment amounting to a cumulative increase of 11.5 percent, plus a one-time payment of 5.5 percent of each teacher’s fiscal year 2021 salary. 

The proposed breakdown is 5 percent for next year and 3.25 percent for the second and third years. The statement explained that funding for the 5 percent increase has been approved, while the subsequent years reflect an increase of “as much as possible…while staying within historical Finance Committee guidelines of 3.5 percent annual budget increases.” 

The BEA statement that was issued late Monday in the form of a press release by the Massachusetts Teachers Association did not mention specific areas of disagreement. But Flaherty-Dawson, the head of the BEA negotiating team, said on Tuesday that the association’s counterproposal is “an additional 2.5 percent increase only on the top steps of the salary table in the second and third year.”

“The Bedford Education Association believes these increases are critical to retain high quality teachers,” Flaherty-Dawson said. However, “The School Committee’s bargaining team stated that they were not authorized to entertain any counterproposal and that the negotiations were at an impasse.”

The statement repeated several talking points the association has advanced in social media posts and through comments at public meetings such as salary discrepancies compared to nearby districts and the School Committee’s rejection of overtures to begin negotiations sooner.

“Bedford educators have endured significant financial sacrifices over the past four years, including a zero percent cost-of-living allowance in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic,” the teachers association wrote.

But the School Committee’s message addressed that point with the lump sum payment, noting that the Finance Committee and Select Board support it. The three committees met in executive session on June 12. Funding would require approval at the next Annual Town Meeting with payment by June 30, 2025. A similar provision was part of the agreements with the support professionals. 

Each side had its own spin on the issue of comparative salaries, using the same spreadsheet.

“The current proposal offered by the School Committee, one of the most aggressive salary offers made in Massachusetts in recent years, moves Bedford to the middle of our surrounding peer districts. We had fallen behind those districts during the COVID-19 pandemic,” read the School Committee statement.

The BEA wrote that the offer does not “help experienced educators attain a competitive salary to aid with the retention of our very dedicated, highly-qualified veteran educators as the top steps still trail the average salary of surrounding communities by a significant amount.”

The School Committee also announced that it supports “cutting the lowest step” in the teachers’ salary determination, once next year and again in 2026-2027. The statement said that will enable “all teachers to start at a higher salary when they choose Bedford for their careers.”

Although the association acknowledged the proposal for the lump sum payment and raising the initial salary scale, it focused on the need for higher pay for experienced teachers. But the School Committee feels that the offer is “very competitive, given our relative tax base, average per capita income, and current average class size.”

The district also is offering “two weeks of paid parental leave with the ability to use their accrued sick time for additional leave.”

Language was more conciliatory in the district’s announcement. The 10 negotiating sessions “were characterized by respectful and collaborative conversations.” Although talks are stalled, “It is our sincere hope that we can reach resolution with the BEA as quickly as possible so that we can mutually return our full attention to serving our students and families.”

The union declared, “It is deeply concerning that as we close out the school year, our teachers are still without a fair contract. The ‘Bedford Way’ has always been about community support for education. It is disappointing to see this tradition being threatened.”

Mediation is supplied by the state Department of Labor Relations. According to the department’s website, “If, after reviewing the mediator’s report, the director determines that an impasse continues to exist and that further mediation is unlikely to resolve the matter, the DLR notifies the parties of its conclusion and the decision to institute fact-finding.”

After the fact-finder issues a report, if there is still no agreement, the mediator notifies the agency director “whether any additional mediation is likely to resolve the impasse. If the director believes that no additional mediation will resolve the impasse, the mediator no longer works with the parties on impasse.”

At that point, the parties involved are left on their own to settle their differences. The state does not have the authority to force a settlement.