Alameda Teachers Demand 9% Raise: A Lesson in Fiscal Responsibility vs. Union Demands

When a school district faces an impossible choice between fiscal solvency and union demands, who pays the price? Alameda’s children—and taxpayers—deserve better than budget gimmicks and empty promises.

The scene outside Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) schools on January 21-22, 2026, was familiar to anyone who has watched the public education drama unfold across California: teachers rallying, union leaders demanding more money, and district officials caught between fiscal reality and political pressure.

At the heart of this standoff lies a fundamental question that transcends Alameda: Should school districts mortgage their financial futures to satisfy union demands, or do they have a responsibility to manage taxpayer dollars with the kind of discipline families practice at their own kitchen tables?

The answer should be obvious. Yet across California, school districts are choosing the path of least resistance—agreeing to unsustainable salary increases that will inevitably lead to layoffs, program cuts, and in some cases, state takeover. Alameda has a chance to chart a different course, one grounded in fiscal accountability and long-term thinking rather than short-term political expediency.

The Union’s Demands: Simple Math That Doesn’t Add Up

The Alameda Education Association (AEA), representing teachers, counselors, nurses, school psychologists, and speech pathologists, is demanding a 9% salary increase, a 2% one-time payment, expanded health benefits, and enhanced retiree benefits. The district has countered with a 2.3% raise and a smaller increase in health benefits.

Union president Judy Ganley argues that Alameda teachers are “at a lower compensation level than the surrounding districts” and claims the district is sitting on over $50 million in reserves that should be spent on teacher compensation.

This argument has surface appeal. Teachers work hard. Many struggle with California’s crushing cost of living. And yes, AUSD does have $52.63 million in reserves.

But here’s what the union conveniently omits: Those reserves are one-time money, not ongoing revenue. Using one-time funds to pay for permanent salary increases is the fiscal equivalent of buying a car with your tax refund—except you’re committing to a monthly payment you can’t afford once that refund is spent.

According to AUSD Superintendent Pasquale Scuderi, the district already took $14.5 million from reserves to partially fund a 7% raise in 2024, spreading that one-time money over seven projected years. The union’s current demands would cost approximately $11 million annually—money the district simply doesn’t have in ongoing revenue.

“Do we continue to do that and layer obligation on top of obligation, on top of obligation, to a point where then it catches up with us?” Scuderi asked. It’s a question more California school districts should be asking themselves.

California’s Looming School Budget Crisis: A Cautionary Tale

Alameda’s situation isn’t unique—it’s a microcosm of a statewide crisis driven by declining enrollment, the end of one-time COVID relief funds, and union demands that ignore fiscal reality.

Sacramento City Unified School District faces a $51 million deficit and is at high risk of state receivership. San Francisco Unified projected deficits exceeding $128 million. Oakland is considering cuts of at least $95 million for the 2025-2026 school year. The Los Angeles Times reports that two-thirds of California school districts are currently considering program and staff cuts.

Yet many of these same districts—including several in the East Bay—have agreed to salary increases that will push them deeper into deficit spending. They’ve chosen political expediency over fiscal responsibility, kicking the can down the road until the crisis becomes unavoidable.

When districts run out of money, who suffers? Not the union leaders who negotiated unsustainable contracts. Not the politicians who approved them. The students lose programs. New teachers get laid off. And taxpayers are left holding the bag, either through local tax increases or state bailouts funded by all Californians.

This is the opposite of compassion. It’s fiscal malpractice dressed up as caring about teachers.

The Real Villain: Sacramento’s Failure to Fund Education

Here’s what both the union and the district agree on: California doesn’t adequately fund public education.

Despite the state’s massive budget and claims of being a progressive leader, California ranks in the middle of the pack nationally for per-pupil spending when adjusted for cost of living. The 2025-26 budget provides $18,534 per pupil for TK-12 education—a figure that sounds impressive until you consider California’s housing costs, regulatory burdens, and pension obligations that consume an ever-larger share of school budgets.

Special education, in particular, has been chronically underfunded by the federal government for 50 years. AUSD currently spends approximately $1 million more on contracted special education employees than it would cost to hire its own staff—a direct result of low pay making it impossible to retain qualified professionals. Nearly half (48%) of the district’s special education paraprofessionals are contractors rather than employees.

Superintendent Scuderi is right to point out that “the state and federal governments don’t give school districts enough money to pay them.” AEA teacher Lyndsey Schlax says she “would love to hear our board and our superintendent tell us, ‘You’re right. You deserve more. And we’re going to advocate on your behalf and with you to the state to make it work.'”

This is where both sides should focus their energy: demanding that Sacramento and Washington fulfill their obligations to fund education adequately, rather than fighting over how to divide an insufficient pie.

Fiscal Responsibility Isn’t the Enemy of Teachers

The district’s offer of a 2.3% raise isn’t generous—it barely keeps pace with inflation, currently at 2.7%. But it’s what the district can afford without jeopardizing its long-term financial stability.

AUSD Board President Ryan LaLonde put it plainly: “Districts can’t de-prioritize fiscal stability. That’s not prudent. The ask really should be for the state to re-prioritize its budget so that school districts can both pay teachers a fair wage and remain solvent in the long term.”

This isn’t about being anti-teacher. It’s about being pro-student and pro-taxpayer. When districts agree to contracts they can’t afford, they inevitably face layoffs, program cuts, and reduced services. The teachers who get hurt worst are often the newest ones—the young educators just starting their careers who will be first on the chopping block when the budget ax falls.

There’s also the matter of fairness to taxpayers. Alameda residents already shoulder one of the highest tax burdens in California. They pay local parcel taxes, state income taxes, and property taxes to fund schools. They have a right to expect that money will be managed responsibly, not spent on salary increases that will require even more tax increases down the road.

The Superintendent’s Salary: A Red Herring

Union supporters have seized on Superintendent Scuderi’s compensation package—$315,331 for 225 days in 2024, with a built-in 6% annual increase—as evidence of district hypocrisy.

Community member Joe LoParo wrote in an open letter that the district gave Scuderi increases totaling $45,000 over three years, significantly more than the 3% initially discussed, while offering teachers just 2.3%.

This argument is emotionally compelling but intellectually dishonest. Superintendent compensation is set by the school board based on market rates for comparable positions. If Alameda wants to attract and retain qualified leadership, it must pay competitive wages. The alternative is a revolving door of mediocre administrators who leave for better opportunities.

More importantly, even if the district eliminated the superintendent position entirely and distributed that salary among AUSD’s approximately 550 teachers, each would receive less than $600 annually—hardly a solution to the compensation gap with neighboring districts.

The focus on executive compensation is a classic union tactic: change the subject from the unsustainability of their demands to the supposed greed of management. It’s a distraction from the real issue, which is whether the district can afford the union’s proposal without jeopardizing its financial future.

What Alameda Should Do: A Path Forward

AUSD faces a difficult choice, but the right path is clear:

First, hold the line on fiscal responsibility. The district should continue to offer raises it can afford with ongoing revenue, not one-time money. If that means accepting a strike, so be it. Short-term pain is preferable to long-term insolvency.

Second, demand transparency. AUSD should publish detailed budget projections showing exactly what the union’s demands would cost over the next five years, including the impact on reserves, programs, and staffing. Alameda residents deserve to see the full picture, not union talking points about “prioritizing teachers.”

Third, unite with other districts to pressure Sacramento. Every school district in California faces the same problem: inadequate state funding. AUSD, AEA, and neighboring districts should form a coalition to demand that the state legislature increase per-pupil funding and fully fund special education. This is where the real money is, and it’s where the fight should be focused.

Fourth, explore innovative solutions. Can the district reduce administrative overhead? Renegotiate vendor contracts? Consolidate services with other districts? Partner with local businesses to provide teacher housing assistance? There are creative approaches that don’t require deficit spending.

Finally, trust parents and taxpayers. If the district makes its case clearly—showing the math, explaining the constraints, and demonstrating good-faith efforts to increase compensation responsibly—most Alameda residents will support fiscal prudence over union demands.

The Stakes: Lessons from Failed Districts

What happens when districts cave to union pressure and agree to unsustainable contracts? Look at Sacramento City Unified, now facing state receivership. Or Oakland, which has been cutting programs and closing schools despite agreeing to generous salary increases. Or San Francisco, projecting deficits exceeding $128 million.

These districts chose the path of least resistance. They prioritized political peace over fiscal responsibility. And now their students, teachers, and communities are paying the price through program cuts, layoffs, and declining educational quality.

Alameda can learn from their mistakes. The district can demonstrate that it’s possible to respect teachers, manage money responsibly, and advocate for adequate state funding—all at the same time.

Conclusion: A Test of Leadership

The standoff between AUSD and AEA is about more than teacher salaries. It’s a test of whether local leaders have the courage to make difficult decisions based on fiscal reality rather than political pressure.

Teachers deserve fair compensation. Students deserve quality education. Taxpayers deserve responsible management of their hard-earned dollars. These aren’t competing values—they’re complementary goals that can only be achieved through honest budgeting, adequate state funding, and the kind of fiscal discipline that families practice every day.

The union’s demand to spend down reserves on permanent salary increases is a recipe for disaster. It’s the same short-term thinking that has driven districts across California to the brink of insolvency. Alameda can—and should—chart a different course.

If AEA truly cares about teachers and students, it will join the district in demanding adequate funding from Sacramento rather than insisting on unsustainable local contracts. If the district truly cares about education, it will hold the line on fiscal responsibility even in the face of political pressure.

And if Alameda residents truly care about their schools, they’ll support leaders who tell the truth about budgets rather than those who make promises they can’t keep.

The choice is clear. The question is whether we have the courage to make it.

Call to Action

The future of Alameda’s schools depends on informed citizens holding leaders accountable.

Attend the next AUSD Board meeting and demand transparency about budget projections and the true cost of union demands. Contact your state legislators and demand adequate funding for California schools—not just promises, but real increases in per-pupil spending and special education funding.

Share this article with fellow Alameda residents who care about fiscal responsibility and quality education. The union has a well-organized communications operation; taxpayers and parents need to make their voices heard just as loudly.

Most importantly, remember: Compassion without fiscal responsibility isn’t compassion—it’s a path to insolvency that will ultimately hurt the very teachers and students we’re trying to help. Demand better from your school district, your union leaders, and your state representatives.

Our children deserve schools that are both excellent and solvent. Anything less is a failure of leadership.