BY TREY PEREYRA AND STACY MARTENS
Co-Presidents
Los Alamos Federation of School Employees | AFT Local #3902
The Los Alamos Federation of School Employees (LAFSE) would like to address the District Administration, School Board, Los Alamos Public Schools (LAPS) staff, and LAPS students and parents regarding the school-year (SY) calendar for 2024-2025. In any year, it’s hard to create a calendar that meets state requirements and balances students’ holistic well-being, staff morale, and parents’ preferences. The circumstances surrounding the SY24/25 calendar were particularly challenging. Notwithstanding, the Board settled on a calendar that is out of step with the overall interests of the LAPS mission and did so in a way that was not transparent to the constituents it serves.
For those unfamiliar with the background that got us here:
● The state mandated a minimum of 180 days of student learning for SY24/25, though teachers
can be compensated if their districts add student days to the calendar.
● The state approved a 3% raise for educators for SY24/25.
● The New Mexico Public Schools Insurance Authority (NMPSIA) raised its rate for medical
premiums by a staggering 15.5% beginning SY24/25.
The school district pays for the majority of the medical premiums–80% for those earning less than $50,000, 70% for those earning in the mid-range, and 65% for those earning over $75,000. Still, despite the 3% pay raise, the premium hike created a situation in which some staff would take home less pay based on a 180-day calendar.
Like the District Administration and Board, LAFSE emphatically believes that reducing take home pay for teachers is bad for the overall health of our mission. However, before identifying a solution for this situation, we expected some very basic questions to be answered, such as: How many LAPS staff participate in NMPSIA? Of them, how many are facing a reduction in take-home pay? Importantly, are there options other than extending the calendar year to offset the premium hike (e.g., using leased funds as an interim solution for SY24/25, negotiate a more equitable balance of premium coverage for employees, are there efficiencies to be gained by reducing district administration?) Is it ethical/equitable to ask everyone–all staff, all students, all families–to extend the school year to address a problem that you cannot quantify? In what specific way will adding days benefit students, given the opportunity cost of time with family, and/or internship/employment opportunities?
These are questions LAFSE would have asked if given the opportunity. Instead, at the School Board Meeting on April 9, the Superintendent introduced, and the Board approved adding five days to the SY24/25 calendar–without even knowing the extent of the problem it was trying to resolve, and without socializing the calendar with parents, students, or LAPS staff. The resulting calendar is in opposition to a staff survey that favored a 180-day calendar by a wide margin. It’s also in opposition to the wishes of students and their parents.
It’s in the School Administration’s and Board’s purview to operate this way. But blindsiding the people you work for with simplistic solutions is a bad look and fractures trust.