2025 Bandon Contract Negotiations

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

This page is not affiliated with the Bandon Education Association. The information below has been generated by a concerned community member and should not be interpreted as an official communication from Bandon School District or the Bandon Education Association.

Financials are considered based on published 2022-2023 finances and the district provided 2024-2025 financial statement.

Q: I have heard that the District does not want to pay teachers what they’re asking for in bargaining with the Union? Does it think teachers don’t deserve it?

A: Well, the District says it values teachers — and I want to believe that’s true. But so far, the budget doesn’t reflect it.

Here’s what I know:

• Bandon has the lowest teacher salaries in Coos County
• At the same time, it’s also the most expensive place to live in the region
• Neighboring districts offer better compensation — which makes it harder to stay competitive

The District has said it’s offering a 16.6% increase, but that number includes things like retirement contributions and insurance — costs that don’t show up in a teacher’s paycheck. It also includes scheduled pay bumps most teachers receive just for returning the next year.

The actual raises being offered are about 3% per year — which isn’t enough to keep up with rising costs, especially in a town where housing prices have jumped by over $100,000 in just a few years.

The union's proposal — with raises of 8%, 5%, and 5% over the next three years — isn’t extreme. It’s meant to:

• Help teachers keep up with inflation
• Make sure long-time teachers aren’t left behind
• Reflect what it actually costs to live in the same community where they work

Choosing not to invest in pay right now isn’t about what’s affordable — it’s about what the District is choosing to prioritize.

Making sure teachers are paid fairly is one of the most direct ways to support strong public schools — and to ensure we continue attracting and keeping great educators in our community.

Q: I have heard that the District has too many administrators. Could cutting them fund teacher raises?

A: The District often describes itself as running lean — but when you look at the numbers, it’s fair to ask: lean for whom?

In the 2022–23 school year, Bandon School District spent over $3.2 million from its General Fund on administrative costs. That includes both central office functions (like the superintendent and business office) and site-level administration (principals, office operations, etc.). For comparison, the District spent just over $7 million on classroom instruction.

That means nearly 46 cents of every classroom dollar went toward administrative overhead.

Could reducing administrative costs help create room for better teacher pay? Possibly. But the bigger issue isn’t just about trimming one line item — it’s about how the District prioritizes its resources overall.

In a district where teacher salaries are the lowest in the county — and the cost of living is the highest — budget choices matter. And while no one is suggesting eliminating administration altogether, there’s a case to be made that more funding should flow directly into classrooms, where it supports student learning most directly.

This conversation isn’t about blame — it’s about values. And in public education, that should start with investing in the people doing the daily work of teaching and supporting students.

Q: I’ve heard the district has a substantial ending fund balance. Is this this true?

A: The District says it will end the 2025–26 fiscal year with only its contingency fund remaining — implying there's no room to fund competitive compensation. But the actual numbers tell a more accurate and balanced story.

According to the District’s own 2024–25 General Fund rollover, it began the year with a $4.4 million fund balance and is projecting to end the year with approximately $2.43 million remaining. That’s just over 18% of total General Fund expenditures (budgeted at $13.5 million) — well within, and even above, the reserve range many districts maintain for financial stability. The OASBO and many Oregon districts follow a general guideline that school districts should maintain a contingency or ending fund balance of 5–8% of annual General Fund expenditures.

Let’s be clear:

• The District is not broke, and its fund balance is not locked away. How much is preserved as contingency — and how much is invested in people — is a policy choice, not a budgetary necessity.

• Drawing down reserves in a high-cost year to stabilize staffing and meet student needs is normal, expected, and fiscally sound. That’s why reserves exist.

• Even after the projected deficit (~$1.97 million), the District would retain millions in reserve, putting it above state-recommended thresholds.

• Of course, long-term sustainability matters. But shortchanging students and losing teachers now only deepens the challenge later.

If the District is serious about long-term stability, it must stop treating educators as an expense to manage and start recognizing them as the core investment public education requires. It’s reasonable to expect solutions that are both responsible and fair — but holding onto large reserves while teacher retention suffers doesn’t seem like one.

Q.: What’s the difference between the BEA's request and the District's offer?

A:
The District claims a 26.9% vs. 16.6% difference — but that framing obscures reality. Here’s what matters:

1. Step increases are not raises

They are contractual and automatic. When the District says it’s offering 6.3% in Year 2, only 3% is actually new money.

2. The Union proposal is focused on base salary

Raises of 8%, 5%, and 5% help ensure even veteran teachers (who don’t move on steps) see meaningful increases.

3. Inflation and housing have far outpaced wages

From 2020–24, Coos County housing prices rose over $110,000 (46%). Teacher pay has not kept pace. This proposal simply catches up.

4. The District’s offer doesn’t meet current needs

A 3% raise in a 5–6% inflation economy isn’t sustainable. While the District receives many applicants, compensation still matters — especially for keeping experienced staff long-term.

Bottom line:

The District continues to claim that the Union’s salary proposal is financially unsustainable. But the data — including the District’s own — tells a very different story.

1. The Cost Gap Between Proposals Is Modest, Not Extreme

Assumes benefits = 73% of salary (i.e., salary = total / 1.73)

Over three years, the difference is roughly $25,000 per teacher total — less than $8,400 per year. That’s not “unsustainable.” It’s a reasonable investment to bring Bandon teachers closer to regional parity and to address retention challenges.

2. Current Compensation Is Out of Step with Cost of Living

• Bandon has the highest housing costs in the region

• It also has the lowest teacher pay in the county

• The District’s own chart shows top salaries barely crossing $90,000 in 2027–28 — in a town where median home prices are out of reach for many educators

When you factor in rising insurance premiums, inflation, and the workload demands of the profession, it becomes clear: the District’s offer doesn’t match economic reality.

3. Fund Balances and Revenues Support a Stronger Offer

As shown in the District’s 2022–23 financial reports:

• The District ended the year with over $12.8 million across all funds
• Of that, $9.25 million was in the General Fund alone
• State revenues totaled more than $7.1 million, not including additional federal or intermediate sources

While current-year projections show a smaller ending balance — around $2.4 million in the General Fund for 2024–25 — that still represents ~18% of projected expenditures, which is a healthy reserve by state standards. And as of the February 12 financial report, the District still had $3.6 million in unspent, unencumbered General Fund dollars — a strong indication that it remains well-positioned to meet staffing needs responsibly.

4. This Is Not About Overreach — It’s About Retention and Respect

The Union’s proposal reflects:

• A 8%, 5%, 5% raise pattern, modest and phased

• Salary increases that keep up with inflation and regional market standards

• A deliberate attempt to retain experienced educators, many of whom are already at the top step and receive little to no increase under the District’s plan

Meanwhile, the District continues to inflate its figures by combining salary and benefits, presenting misleading compensation totals that do not reflect take-home pay.

Summary of District Misinformation in 6-16-2025 FAQ Document

1. Misleading Compensation Claims

• Claim: The District says the Union’s proposal would raise compensation from "$133,844 to $168,366."
• Reality: These figures combine salary and benefits, inflating the apparent increase. Much of that “growth” comes from fixed-cost benefits (e.g., PERS, health insurance) that do not increase teacher take-home pay. The actual base salary increases under the Union’s proposal are 8%, 5%, and 5%, designed to restore competitiveness — not create excess.

2. Inflated Comparison to District Offer

• Claim: The District frames its offer as a “16.6% raise over three years.”
• Reality: That total includes 3.3% step increases, which are already guaranteed under the salary schedule. The real raise in base pay offered is just 3%, 3%, and 4% — barely tracking inflation and far below the Union’s proposal in both intent and impact.

3. Downplaying Available Funds

• Claim: The District says it will end 2025–26 with only its contingency fund remaining, and that the Union is relying on outdated figures.

• Reality: While earlier financial reports showed higher fund balances, the District’s current 2024–25 General Fund projection shows:

• A beginning balance of $4.4 million

• A projected deficit of nearly $2 million

• An estimated ending fund balance of $2.43 million by June 2025

That’s about 18% of projected expenditures — a reserve level still within typical state recommendations.

The District is not out of funds — but it is making choices about how much to preserve versus how much to invest in staff. Even amid a deficit, there is room for targeted, sustainable compensation improvements if the District chooses to prioritize them.

4. Administrator Spending Deflection

• Claim: The District argues administrator staffing is lean and not a significant cost.
• Reality: This is a deflection. While some roles are grant-funded, the core issue is not administrator headcount — it’s District budget priorities. Instead of protecting a reserve surplus, the District could invest more directly in retaining qualified educators.

5. Omission of Local Economic Reality

• Claim: The District makes no mention of cost-of-living or regional pay comparisons.
• Reality: Bandon is the lowest-paying district in Coos County, yet has the highest property values and cost of living. From 2020 to 2024, median home prices in the area rose by over $110,000 (46%) — while teacher wages remained nearly flat. The District's silence on this pressure is telling.

Summary

The District frames its offer as generous and its situation as constrained — but public data shows that:

• Funds exist

• Inflation-adjusted salaries have fallen behind

• Neighboring districts are doing better

The Union’s proposal isn’t excessive — it’s a strategic correction to preserve educational quality in a high-cost town. Misleading comparisons and vague financial projections don’t change that reality.

Resources

Appendix

The FAQ released by the Bandon School District on 6/16/2025 inspired me to publish this page. I’m offering another way to look at the District’s questions — not to discredit them, but to highlight what the numbers and priorities might look like from a different angle. I don’t claim to be infallible, but everything presented here reflects my good-faith interpretation of the facts and data available. I’ve made every effort to be accurate, transparent, and fair based on the District’s own reports and publicly available information.