LEXINGTON — Teachers in Lexington Local Schools have launched a soft strike after the district’s board of education voted to implement a contract without the union’s approval.
Members of the Lexington Teachers’ Association (LTA) announced last weekend that effective Monday, the union was implementing work-to-rule — meaning teachers are only working their contracted school day hours.
That means no more arriving early, volunteering after school or grading papers late into the night.
The school board voted to unilaterally adopt a new contract on Sept. 2 — two days after the last contract expired.
Both the board and union leadership had tentatively agreed to the new contract, but when the LTA took it back to its members, they voted it down, 82-47.
Bruce Dewey, a junior high math teacher and member of the LTA’s negotiations team, said the board’s decision to implement the contract anyway, “completely undermines the collective bargaining process.”
“It sends a disheartening message to every educator in this district: our voices, our professional experiences and our votes do not matter,” Dewey said at a meeting on Sept. 17.
Lexington Supt. Jeremy Secrist said the district is proud of its teachers and grateful for their commitment to students.
“Their work in the classroom makes a difference every single day, and we recognize the sacrifices they make both professionally and personally,” Secrist said in a statement provided to Richland Source.
“The district negotiated in good faith with the teachers’ union to reach a tentative agreement on all issues that was signed by both bargaining teams. Although the agreement was not approved by union membership, the Board of Education implemented its terms to ensure staff received raises promptly in the September 5 payroll and to avoid retroactive complications,” Secrist said.
LTA president said he wants to revisit negotiations
Board of Education President Keith Stoner said the board and LTA began negotiations for a new contract in August and that parties met three or four times before the union declared an impasse.
At that point, both parties agreed to go to a mediator. After a few meetings, the board and LTA representatives came to a tentative agreement.
“We went through the process of negotiations, I feel both sides negotiated in good faith and we came to a decent, collaborative agreement,” Stoner said.
The manner in which the board acted to impose the contract is also up for question.
LTA President Pat Cannon said he notified administrators that the vote failed on Aug. 28. He didn’t hear anything back, but didn’t think anything of it.
“We were willing to negotiate again. That’s what I thought would happen,” Cannon said. “I was willing to work with them. I know we were going to have to make some concessions.”
An agenda on the district’s website for the Sept. 2 meeting lists “LTA Contract: Recommend to adopt a resolution to unilaterally implement the tentative agreement with the LTA.”
Cannon said he didn’t get an agenda or notification from the administration before the board’s vote.
“I’m a regular at these meetings. I always get the agenda beforehand. This came out of nowhere,” he said.
Lexington notified local news media of the upcoming meeting on Aug. 29 with a email message: “There will be a Special Board meeting September 2, 2025 at 6:00pm in the Robert H. Whitney Performing Arts Center to discuss the Tax Policy as well as the LTA Contract. Have a great weekend!”
A post on the district’s Facebook page the same day listed an ongoing analysis of the district’s tax policy as a topic of discussion. There was no mention of the contract with the LTA.
Under Ohio’s Open Meetings Act, public bodies like school boards are required to notify the public of any special meetings and the specific topics it will discuss during those meetings.
Union members called the board’s actions upsetting and questioned whether a contract could be binding without both parties signing on.
The LTA’s previous contract states that “no final agreement shall be executed without ratification by the Association and the Board” in the course of future negotiations.
Stoner said the board acted on the advice of its legal counsel, Andrew Burton, in approving the agreement. The LTA’s contract outlines the process for negotiating a new contract and the parties had been through them all.
“(Burton) said that was our next step and that’s what we did,” Stoner said. “There’s been discussion that we should have returned to the table. Our lawyer’s point was, ‘To do what, go through mediation again?’ It could have become a never ending circle.”
Cannon said he’s worried about the precedent it sets.
“I’ve never heard of a board of education implementing a contract like that,” he said. “If they do it in Lexington, they can do it anywhere.”
Cannon the union has filed a grievance with the district and an unfair labor practice charge with the Ohio Education Association.
Per the union’s contract, there will be a hearing on the matter during the next regularly scheduled board meeting; however, it will take place in executive session — meaning the hearing itself won’t be open to the public.
Union leaders said the goal of the work to rule and the grievance is to bring the district back to the negotiating table.
Secrist did not directly respond to questions about whether he would be open to reopening negotiations.
“We remain committed to open, fact-based communication and to working in partnership with teachers, families, and the community,” he said. “Our shared goal is to provide students the best education possible while maintaining fiscal responsibility for taxpayers.”
New contract includes raises, insurance hikes
LTA members said some teachers had concerns about changes to planning time language in the contract, but the primary concern was changes to employee health insurance.
The implemented contract includes a 2 percent pay raise each year for the next three years, in addition to the step raises based on years of experience that is built into the teacher salary schedule.
The contract also includes what administrators and board members say are modest changes to the teacher health insurance plan,
They include:
- Employee premiums increasing from 14 to 15 percent, a difference of about $310 a year for a family plan
- Deductibles rose to $400 for individuals and $800 for families (up from $250 and $500, respectively)
- Co-insurance rates rose from 15 to 20 percent for in-network costs
- Out-of-pocket maximums rose to $2,500 for a single plan and $5,000 for a family plan
Lexington Treasurer Jason Whitesel said district employees still have a generous plan compared to averages from the State Employee Relations Board, which governs collective bargaining agreements for the state’s public employees — including school districts.
District leaders said medical plan changes are necessary due to rising costs and cuts to state funding for public education.
Whitesel said health insurance costs now make up almost 16.7 percent of the district’s overall operating budget.
The total cost (both the district and employee contributions) for a family health insurance plan is nearly $31,000 a year, Whitesel said.
“We know that even modest changes in insurance can feel difficult, especially when families are already managing increased costs in daily life,” Secrist said.
“These adjustments were made only after careful review, with the goal of balancing financial realities while protecting employees and respecting taxpayer resources.”
Stoner said the changes weren’t designed to save the district money, but to reduce the financial hit of rising health insurance costs.
“We were significantly concerned about the increases that have been presented. It’s not a new thing. It’s been a recurring continuous problem for as long as I can remember,” Stoner said. “It’s to a place where we have to do what we can to mitigate the exposure. The costs are becoming so prohibitive.”
Officials in other districts like Mansfield City and Madison have also stated health insurance costs are straining school systems.
Meanwhile, public schools are coping with flat or reduced state funding after the approval of a new biennium budget this summer.
Administrators have also pointed out that the district’s other union in the district, which represents non-teaching staff, agreed to new insurance conditions.
Teachers argue that the cost increases aren’t modest and for some, won’t be outweighed by the raises and step increases in the contract.
Gabe Sanchez, a fifth-grade English Language Arts teacher at Eastern Elementary and LTA representative, said the district’s salaries are comparatively low, but good benefits have helped make up for it.
He also said teachers have made sacrifices in the past, like accepting three consecutive years of step freezes in the early 2010s.
“The teachers are always the ones to give in,” Sanchez said. “Teachers aren’t a freaking charity. We love the kids, but we’ve got to support our own kids.”
Sanchez added teachers are still giving students their all during the school day.
“We are still working just as hard, if not harder,” he said. “We’re still chipper. We’re not sharing any of the nitty gritty with the kids.”