Teachers, classified staff press Apple Valley Unified for pay, health care and classroom safety

Dozens of teachers and classified staff urged the Apple Valley Unified School District board on March 6 to make employee health care, pay and classroom safety a budget priority, warning that continued cuts and unfilled promises are driving educators away.

Speakers at the meeting’s public comment period included Karen Sabers, who said the district has failed to honor past promises and must make teachers a “high priority” for health and salary improvements. “We were misled and told that if we agreed to place a cap on our insurance all teachers would be able to return … that promise has not been fulfilled,” Sabers said, recounting earlier pink slips and years of instability.

The Apple Valley Unified Teachers Association’s lead negotiator, Lesie McNley, told trustees the board’s answer at a January meeting was “zero,” a response she called unacceptable for staff facing rising costs and lower relative pay. “Zero is not an answer we can accept,” McNley said, urging the board to fund COLA and competitive benefits so the district can retain quality teachers.

Classified staff and the CCA chapter president JC Scott described support workers as the district’s “army” and asked the board to “honor our bargaining request” for fully funded health care and a fair cost‑of‑living increase. Amy Carter, a special‑needs paraeducator, said classified employees collectively keep schools running and deserve “a fair wage for the tireless hours we collectively provide to AVUSD.”

Union presenters also delivered survey results documenting safety and behavior concerns. Karen Sabers said a teacher survey of 200 respondents found that 23% reported being physically harmed by a student during the current school year, 58% said teachers or students had been threatened, and 74% reported profanity with violent overtones; 54% said they did not feel adequately supported. Sabers urged the board to invest in training, clearer discipline enforcement and staffing to address those problems.

Board members responded by noting limits imposed by state law and Education Code provisions but acknowledged concerns. Trustees and staff discussed de‑escalation training (CPI), greater use of existing Ed Code provisions (such as 48900 and 48915) and strategies like smaller class sizes and more counselors. Several trustees emphasized the need for consistent follow‑through by administration when students are brought to the office.

The public comments came as unions enter negotiations with the district; union leaders repeatedly framed pay and health benefits as retention and student‑achievement issues. The meeting record shows the unions pressing for concrete budget commitments ahead of forthcoming financial decisions by the board.