The San Diego Community College District recently approved a new salary agreement known as the 2026 Resource Allocation Formula. The AFT Guild promoted the agreement as an important breakthrough that would raise low salaries and eventually make all faculty into a single salary class. It will go into effect for full-time faculty in January 2026 and for adjuncts by July 2026. The guild also emphasized that the District contributed an additional 4.3 million dollars beyond the cost-of-living adjustment and encouraged faculty to view the settlement as a significant step toward equity and what they called a “one faculty” model.
Once the details circulated, however, a different narrative emerged among faculty. In discussions across district colleges and faculty listservs, many instructors expressed frustration, confusion, and concern. For adjuncts, the central issue remains equal pay for equal work. Adjunct instructors have long taught the same courses under the same credentialing and professional development requirements as full-time faculty, yet are compensated at a much lower rate and without proportional pay for preparation, office hours, or service. The new agreement does not change this structure. Adjunct faculty retain temporary appointments and receive no advancement toward job security or proportional compensation.
Other groups affected by the agreement are doctoral and PD-advanced faculty who invested years of graduate training and thousands of dollars in loans and additional credits to move across the existing salary schedule. Under the new plan, these distinctions are eliminated once all faculty are collapsed into Class 6. Critics argue that the removal of degree-based differentiation effectively erases the economic value of advanced education at the exact moment community colleges are expanding bachelor’s degrees and encouraging students to pursue graduate study. They view the settlement as inconsistent with the institution’s public message about the importance of higher education.
The agreement also includes a one-time 1.70 percent payment calculated from each individual’s gross earnings for 2025. In practice, this mechanism favors those already at higher salary levels. Transparent California data illustrates the gap. An adjunct faculty member making around $30,000 annually would receive approximately $500. A full-time faculty member earning roughly $169,000 would receive nearly $3,000. Because the payment is off schedule, it does not raise base salaries or contribute to retirement. Faculty opposed to the settlement argue that calling this equitable is misleading because proportional bonuses widen existing income gaps rather than narrowing them.
Broader financial trends in the district provide further context. Over the past eight years, the share of the SDCCD budget allocated to faculty salaries has declined from about 57% to roughly 53%. During that same period, the share allocated to management nearly doubled, rising from approximately 7% to more than 11%, adding over $12,000,000 to administrative costs. Administrative positions, including new vice chancellor roles, have grown while adjuncts continue to rely on multiple jobs to remain in the profession. Critics contend that if resources exist for administrative expansion, then the persistent claim that equal pay for equal work is financially unattainable reflects budget priorities rather than fiscal necessity.
The Guild has described the new RAF as a first step toward a unified faculty system. However, the order of reforms matters. Degree-based distinctions are removed immediately, while employment-based disparities between adjunct and full-time labor remain fully intact. Adjunct faculty note that this sequencing reinforces rather than reduces the two-tier structure. In their view, a true one-faculty model would begin with employment status, job security, load parity, and equal pay for equal work before restructuring the salary schedule.
When voting concluded, the agreement passed with 62.99% support. For most labor settlements, this would be interpreted as a solid endorsement. Yet the unusually high turnout and the nearly four hundred faculty who voted against the proposal suggest growing dissatisfaction with how equity is defined and implemented within the district. The result indicates not only disagreement over policy but a broader shift in faculty expectations about compensation, recognition, and transparency.
Equity is a complex issue once it moves beyond mission statements and enters compensation systems. Different faculty groups define equity in different ways. Adjuncts prioritize equal pay for equal work and job security. Doctoral faculty prioritize recognition of training and credentials. Early-career contract faculty want competitive starting salaries. The district prioritizes flexibility and cost control. And the union is attempting to negotiate progress within structural constraints that many faculty argue should be challenged more aggressively.
Whether the RAF becomes a starting point for deeper reform or the endpoint of this round of adjustments will depend on how seriously the District and the union take the next phase of negotiations. For faculty who opposed the settlement, unity cannot be achieved through branding or technical restructuring. It requires confronting the two-tier system that has defined community college instruction for decades and recognizing that the promise of equity cannot be fulfilled while adjunct labor remains structurally unequal.
also see SDAFA opposes the 2025 SDCCD RAF Agreement put forward by the AFT Guild on December 1, 2025
Thank you for this, in my opinion, balanced analysis of the RAF changes. I don’t think that the AFT negotiating group did a good job of presenting balanced discussions of the RAF proposal. It was, “This is the only option. Vote for, or against it.”
In several open forums, I was never able to get an answer from Jim Mahler (or any of the Negotiating group) to the question, “Why is the district willing to contribute an extra $4.3 million, but only for THIS proposal?”
My guess is that the district saves considerably more than 4.3 million in the long run. I think this was bad for faculty, both Adjunct and Contract, in the long run. I urge all faculty to vote against all of this negotiating group in future AFT elections – Including Jim Mahler. It is long been time for new leadership in our Union.