best of myshortpencil
• • • • •

Let me count the ways
The real and effective compensation add-ons of teachers
From Saratoga Springs teachers’ raises more than billed
9.14.03

• 73% of teachers don’t pay the 6.2% social security tax (2003 AFT data).
• experience-based step increases
• additional college degrees
• additional college credits
• additional teacher development (training) credits
• achieving additional teaching licenses or certifications
• certification by National Board of Professional Teaching Standards
• advising clubs (used to be done as part of the job) and stipends for additional duties
• coaching sports (used to be done by volunteers)
• administering grants
• developing and grading state exams
• TRI pay (adds $7,865 to some Washington state teacher salaries) for duties they perform outside the regular classroom day, like tutoring students, meeting with parents, planning lessons and grading papers TRI pay is my personal favorite for an add-on.
• Lifetime health insurance benefits plus $800 vehicle damage reimbursement
• incentive pay
• bonuses for improving student performance
• holiday bonuses
• county pay supplements (used in N.C.)
• all-expense-paid oceanside retreats (with seminar programs)
• special stipends
• serving as a mentor or staff developer
• teaching in a subject where there is a teacher shortage
• working in a school that presents more challenges to staff than other schools in the district
• developing new skills/knowledge in non-university settings
• “volunteering” (for additional pay) to teach an “additional” class
• “volunteering” (for additional pay) to teach a “larger” class, also known as overload pay
• “volunteering” to teach summer school (paying teachers more for failing to teach their students the first time)
• longevity pay increases
• contractual cost of living increases
• increased employer contributions to health insurance (Compensation is compensation.)
• increased employer contributions to pensions (Compensation is compensation.)
• tax credits for school supply purchases
• low cost breakfasts & lunches
• free parking
• pensions exempted from state income taxes
• income tax credits just for being a teacher
• forgiveness of college loans for teaching 3 years (sometimes limited to inner-city or high poverty schools), including state & federal programs
• college tuition reduction
• subsidized teacher housing
• the purchase of HUD houses at half price (program since terminated due, in part, to teacher fraud, but apparently not in L.A.)
• teacher-only discounts on mortgages, notably through LATMAP
• $500 monthly teacher-only mortgage payment assistance
• teacher-only discounts by retailers
• reimbursement for licensed daycare services
• compensation for summer workshops and workshops on non-teaching days
• life insurance
• sabbaticals
• maternity leave for more than a year
• lower tuition rates or free tuition for their out-of-district children
• reimbursement for college courses
• cashing in unused personal days and sick leave
• using sick leave to skip your final year of work at full salary
• declining health insurance coverage (often when covered by a spouse’s policy)
• early retirement incentives, which are offered because we pay teachers so much we can’t afford to keep them
• And, I almost forgot, retire, collect your pension, and go back to the same job at the top of the salary scale! and possibly earn a second school pension!

It looks like the list of options for a new car! And it’s all intentionally and politically done to create a public perception that teachers are underpaid even though teachers’ pay on an hourly basis tops many professions. Indeed, S-G teachers earn an average total compensation of $117,000 a year for highly secure, intrinsically rewarding jobs in smaller classes. The goal is to make teacher salaries look as small as possible to create leverage for increasing teacher salaries and contributions for the Democratic Party even though High Teacher Pay Doesn’t Result in High Achievement.

2005
NEA Rankings & Estimates Update [pdf]
12.5.05

If the graphs do not show up properly in your browser, click here
for the same commentary at School
Talk.

Educators nationwide are losing spending power for themselves and their
families. In fact, while teachers’ salaries rose 2.3 percent over the past year,
inflation increased 3.1 percent. Check out the recent update to our annual
report “Rankings and Estimates…” for additional key findings.

Are teachers unions so bad that they can’t get their members pay increases that at
least match the rate of inflation, OR do they think you’re so gullible that
you’ll accept the headline at face value and commiserate with the teachers? NY
is listed as one of the states with below-the-rate-of-inflation salary growth
and it’s a complete fiction–the result of an over-simplistic and flawed
methodology.

Here’s what the NEA isn’t telling you. First, the average experience of teachers
is declining. That means average salaries are smaller than they would be had the
average experience level stayed the same. The decline in experience is being
caused primarily by two factors–a disproportionately high number of retirements
and the expansion of the number of teachers. When these two factors, alone,
are considered, average teacher salaries are above the rate of inflation.
Historically and on average, teachers have been beating inflation by about
5-tenths of a percentage point, which means their salaries are making real gains
of 5% per decade. In some places, the real gains are twice that rate. In other
places, teachers have made no gains at all relative to inflation, but at least
they haven’t suffered salary cuts of 10% to 35% like many American workers.

The second thing the NEA isn’t telling you is that many union locals have opted
for smaller increases in salaries rather than giving up free or low-cost health
insurance. When looking at the percentage increase in total compensation,
teachers are beating inflation handsomely–generally, between 1.5 and 3 times
the rate of inflation.

As for the NEA’s salary rankings, they’re worthless. They aren’t adjusted for
the state’s living costs and the wages earned by other workers. Beyond that, the
NEA’s average salary estimates are flawed, as I have demonstrated in my
extensive analysis of the NEA’s 2005 Rankings & Estimates.

The following two charts show where teachers are over- and under-paid, relative
to the state’s cost of living and the state’s median family income, and the
extent to which they are over- or under-paid. The red lines show the expected
average teacher salary in each state and the green squares show the average
teacher salary in each state, adjusted for discernible errors in the NEA’s data.

The following graphic provides a geographic perspective on
average teacher salaries. Most notably, teachers in the Rust Belt are paid much
higher salaries than justified by their economies, relative to the average pay
of teachers in other states.

For a ranking of teacher salaries in 50 urban areas, see Teachers’
Cost of Living Matters More. And for an interesting look at superintendent
salaries, see How
Rich is Your Superintendent?.

Teacher contracts contribute to layoffs
James Walsh and Ron Nixon, Minneapolis
Star Tribune

Originally posted May
25, 2004

• PART
ONE and PART
TWO

Peter Maxwell came to teaching in Minneapolis as a second career four years ago.
He’s been laid off every spring since.

To save his job, he has agreed to cut his hours and his pay. He has split his
days teaching physical education and health between an elementary school in the
mornings and a high school in the afternoons. Now, his afternoon job has been
cut. If he can’t find another assignment by fall, Maxwell said he will leave.

Thousands of younger, less experienced teachers in Minnesota are finding it
nearly impossible to find and retain jobs. Declining enrollments and stagnant
state funding play a role.

But a Star Tribune analysis of teachers’ contracts and school finances has
found that teachers’ contracts themselves — with automatic raises based on
education and experience and job security based on seniority — contribute to
layoffs. Because districts have to lay off their least experienced teachers
first — and those teachers cost much less — schools end up cutting even more
teachers to balance their budgets.

What
do you know? The press has finally figured it out.

At a time when schools and teachers’ unions insist that hiring good new teachers
is critical to education, schools must instead choose between the connection
young teachers often have with students or the skills and experience of older
teachers. Because state law requires districts to cut newer teachers first,
there is really no choice. Young teachers lose.

* * *

Projections show statewide enrollment — and the money that comes with those
students — falling over the next several years. Still, school districts keep
paying teachers more. As a result, the Star Tribune has found, many districts
appear to be slashing budgets to pay for those raises.

TODAY’S
BEST OF MYSHORTPENCIL.COM
• SEE
A LIST OF THIS WEEK’S COMMENTARIES
• More
Stories on Teacher Unions & Salaries

• Minneapolis schools expect to cut $20 million before fall. For the
two-year contract before that, Minneapolis teachers’ pay increased a total of
$17.5 million.

• Brooklyn Center’s 2004-05 deficit is $500,000; its salary increase for
2001-03 was $601,809.

Looks
like the work of someone with a college degree–mathematically challenged plus
an inability to plan and forecast consequences.

In 53 of the 153 districts that provided information to the Minnesota School
Boards Association, pay increases for 2004-05 equaled or exceeded what they have
to cut. In 97 districts, pay increases equaled at least half of their expected
deficits.

Yet, except for a few pilot projects, nobody is seriously pitching a
different way to pay teachers. The influence of public employee unions –
and the threat of teachers strikes — make that unlikely, said Gov. Tim Pawlenty.
But he said he thinks change must come.

Does
anyone see a beanstalk growing out of control?

"Nothing should be on autopilot," he said of the current system of
paying teachers. "The Big Kahuna in this whole debate is salaries and
benefits. And if you don’t have an opportunity to control those costs, when
enrollment is going down, you can’t manage your budget."

* * *

And for most schools, teachers are the biggest operating expense.

Up to 85 percent of a district’s total operating costs go to salaries and
benefits for all employees. And more than half that total goes to teachers in
contracts negotiated every two years. Almost all of those contracts — including
salary, health insurance and retirement benefits — cost more every year.

Total teacher pay in Minnesota often goes up, even if the number of kids and
teachers drops. From 1998-99 through 2002-03, 129 school districts lost students
yet increased total teacher pay faster than inflation. Over that same time, 92
school districts lost teachers, yet increased total teacher pay over inflation.

To afford those raises, districts often have to cut jobs later, said Michael
Podgurgsky, a professor at the University of Missouri and an expert in teacher
compensation.

"The one you can zero in on immediately is the salary schedule," he
said. "I was just struck and continue to be struck by what an anachronism
this is. There are no other professionals that are paid under such a rigid
system. If you’re alive another year, or if you accumulate graduate credits that
may or may not have anything to do with what a school needs, that’s where it
goes."

Contract math

Even a contract calling for no raise can give millions in raises.

It’s
designed that way to mislead the public and make it feel sorry for the poor
teachers.

These raises, called "steps and lanes," reward teachers for gaining
experience and obtaining additional education. They can also drive up a
district’s contract costs 2 to 3 percent a year. Chris Richardson, Osseo’s
outgoing superintendent, said his district gave teachers a zero percent average
increase for 2002-03. But after health insurance increases and steps and lanes
paid to teachers, total teacher compensation went up 8 percent over two years.

What
have I been saying?

Individual raises can be much bigger than that.

Under the current Robbinsdale schools contract, a teacher in the sixth year with
a bachelor’s degree and some additional graduate school credit made $39,829 in
2003-04. In 2004-05, the contract calls for that teacher to make $42,267 for
going up to the seventh step — a 6 percent increase. Now, if that teacher goes
to school this summer and moves over another "lane" in education
credits (which the teacher pays for), he or she will make $43,077 next school
year — an 8.2 percent increase. And, if the teacher adds education credits
every year over the next three years, his or her salary would go from $39,829 to
$53,298 — a 34 percent raise over three years.

* * *

Out of the 1,400 to 1,500 teachers in the Osseo schools, 700 are at the top of
the pay scale and the rest are moving up through steps and lanes. Few young
teachers in their first three years remain. As a result, Richardson said,
contracts cost more as more teachers hit top pay. From 1998-99 through 2002-03,
total teacher pay in Osseo rose 22 percent, after adjusting for inflation, even
though it had 52 fewer teachers.

"You end up cutting a lot of promising young teachers you’d like to see
make this a career," Richardson said.

Minneapolis interim Superintendent David Jennings said he’s tried to persuade
the teachers’ union to freeze steps and lanes to save the jobs of younger
teachers and preserve smaller class sizes. Other school employee unions have
accepted freezes, he said. But the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers won’t
bite.

Yes.
All reasonable suggestions like this get you labeled as a union buster, as I’ve
learned. Actually, I’ve never called for a freeze, just a rule limiting
increases in compensation to the rate of inflation when property taxes go up
faster than the rate of inflation.

"It was very hard to sell jobs over raises," he said. "Why? I
suspect it’s because many teachers are not overpaid for what they do."

Aren’t
they? Have you since the high school gym teacher outside during class? What is
s/he doing to earn $461 a 7-hour-day in salary and benefits?

Lots of teachers are overpaid. As pointed out in an earlier article on this
site, the salary scale is driven by the pay it takes to attract mathematicians
and scientists. The rest couldn’t earn near their compensation in the private
sector.

* * *

While educators say that losing newer teachers is pushing up class sizes –
about half the districts in Minnesota have seen class sizes increase since 1998
– it also severs the closer connection that young teachers can have to
students.

* * *

Statistics show that one out of five teachers bails out of the profession in the
first five years. Union folks cite poor starting pay as the reason. But
Nashwauk-Keewatin Superintendent John Klarich said layoffs and the seniority
system play a role. For now, Nashwauk is able to pay its teachers well because
the district is gaining students — and revenue — through open enrollment. But
if that changes, Klarich admits, that higher pay will mean a lot of younger
teachers will lose jobs. Teachers, however, will still want their raises, he
said.

"When it comes to teachers and their salaries," he said. "They
eat their young."

The union view

When times get tough, school leaders often try to shove the burden onto
teachers, says Sundin. In reality, she said, transportation, health services,
social services and other expenses are taking more and more school funding.

"When we negotiate, we negotiate with the overall understanding that
teachers need to be fairly compensated for their work. They aren’t now,"
Sundin said. "Our meager settlements have not broken the bank. We’re
just trying to hold our own."

That’s
just an outright lie. Holding your own means seeing compensation increases level
with inflation. The purpose of unions is to gain more wealth for their members.
The most powerful powerful unionists in the world aren’t "just trying to
hold their own."

Jewell Gould, a lead researcher with the American Federation of Teachers (AFT),
called blaming teachers’ contracts for layoffs "unbelievable."

According to the AFT, the average salary for teachers falls well below the
average wages of other white-collar occupations. In 2002, the average teacher
salary was $44,367, up 2.7 percent from the previous year. But that compared
with $54,503 for midlevel accountants, $74,534 for computer system analysts and
$76,298 for engineers.

Want
to know what’s wrong with using average salaries for teachers? First, the
reported averages don’t include all the pay
"add-ons" teachers get. Second, the average doesn’t include fringe
benefits. Teachers typically pay little toward their pensions and health
insurance costs. Third, the average doesn’t allow for income earned during
summers and after retirement while most workers are still at their jobs. Fourth,
the average doesn’t account for the savings in child care realized by teachers
who are off work during breaks and summers when their children are. Fifth, the
average doesn’t account for the added hours private sector workers spend at
work. Sixth, the average doesn’t account for quality of worklife issues.

So, the average teacher teacher salary is equivalent to $66,500. And the vast
majority of them couldn’t earn near that average in the private sector with the
skills they have. As pointed out in
this article, "Your most in-demand teachers drive the salary guide. You
have to pay them enough to stay, and the teachers less in demand all
benefit."

Even if teachers worked a 12-month year, their pay would fall short, the AFT
said. Adding another 35 days of work would increase the average teacher salary
to $52,541.

But, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, teacher pay ranks high
among other professionals — when comparing their 180-plus-day work year with
those of others who work 250 days or more. Using an hourly average, teachers in
the Twin Cities area make more than registered nurses, writers, accountants and
auditors and even some management positions, bureau statistics show.

Thank
you, Star Tribune! In New York, teachers make more than some physicians
on an hourly basis. See, e.g., Teachers’
pay on hourly basis tops many professions, study finds and The
Hourly Wages of Public School Teachers.

Teachers have sacrificed to help their districts in the past, union leaders say.
They’ve accepted contracts that froze steps and lanes; they’ve taken less to
save jobs.

Some
have, but even when "taking less," teacher compensation climbs faster
than inflation.

The St. Paul Federation of Teachers recently agreed to a contract that provided
a 2.5 percent average increase in 2003-04 and no increase in 2004-05, in part to
save the jobs of newer teachers, union president Barbara Wencl said.

* * *

Solutions scarce

Some officials insist that this cycle of layoffs, then hiring, then layoffs, will
continue unless public employee laws are changed and seniority rules are eased.

Exactly
right.

What if, instead of lopping off the bottom in terms of experience, schools could
lop off the bottom in terms of job evaluations? suggested Richard Kreyer, who
was head of human resources for the St. Paul schools until March. If districts
could lay off underperforming teachers, they would certainly include some more
expensive teachers, Kreyer said.

"And, maybe then, you don’t need to cut as many people," he said.

"There just isn’t the will in the Legislature to do that," said Rep.
Alice Seagren, R-Bloomington. "The union strength in this state is such
that people are just very afraid to open that issue. And I am just very afraid
that even if we had major reform, we would end up with the same problems."

Nothing
can be done. Our fate is sealed. How did we become so helpless?

Instead, she said, the state needs to begin paying teachers for how well they
teach, rather than how long they’ve taught.

No.
Education needs to be re-engineered to teach The
21st Century Student. Stand-and-deliver classroom instruction is a relic
with limited exceptions.

Carolyn Kelley, a University of Wisconsin professor of Educational
Administration, proposes just that in her book "Paying
Teachers for What They Know and Do." But such a system would cost more
– not less — than current contracts. That’s a tough sell when budgets are
tight. However, if people were convinced that the best teachers were getting the
highest pay, the public might be willing to increase funding, she said.

But teachers themselves may be hard to convince.

Robbinsdale proposed a radical shift in how to pay its teachers in 1997, when
the union put forward a system that would do away with most steps and lanes and
instead pay teachers more for earning "points."

Tom Walerius, business manager for the Robbinsdale schools, was president of the
district’s teachers’ union then. He said the idea was to strengthen the teacher
ranks and raise pay more quickly by rewarding ability over longevity.

It never happened.

Some teachers liked the idea. But many teachers are wary of moving to a system
in which their pay would be set by someone’s evaluation.

Performance evaluations are too subjective, said Sundin of the MFT. "Then,
keeping your job would depend on whose butt you kissed."

Spoken
like a teacher.

Judy Schaubach, president of Education Minnesota, the state teachers’ union,
suspects that school districts, freed of seniority rules, would go to the other
extreme and lay off teachers who make the most money.

Schaubach said she has a better idea: Make state funding more predictable by
building in an annual inflation adjustment. Then more jobs will survive, she
said.

My Turn: The wheels are about to come off the school bus
By MAX MERTZ, local CPA and the Juneau School District’s auditor, Juneau
Empire
Originally posted September
27, 2003

See, also, “A Primer on Teacher Contracts” Part
One and Part
Three.

I happened to see the teachers picketing the school board the other night. They
were out in force to make their point and to right what they perceive is an
injustice. More power to them. I believe that Juneau is fortunate to have a lot
of caring teachers and, incidentally, administrators and support staff, who work
hard to give our kids a quality education. But there is a problem coming that
teachers’ desire for more money seems to be at odds with.

Here
we have an example of how to say you wish someone could have something, and top
it with accolades of desert, while at the same time (below) presenting the facts
that suggest they can’t have it. Anytime it’s impossible for someone to have
what they want, it’s always good politics to say you’d like them to have it and
they deserve it. Such statements are almost always made more for the benefit of
the bearer of bad news than the recipient of it, which makes judging their
genuineness problematic.

Because of poor market performance, bad actuarial assumptions and other causes,
the twin retirement systems that most government employees in Alaska are
participating in, PERS
and TRS,
are going to have to substantially increase the contributions that the school
district makes on employees’ behalf in fiscal 2005 (the year that begins on July
1, 2004). The increases will be from the current 12 percent of salary to 16
percent for teachers, who are in TRS, and from about 8 percent to about 13
percent for other employees, who participate in PERS. Calculate it out and this
means that the district will have to pay about $1,150,000 more in benefits for
district employees next fiscal year over the current fiscal year. This
benefit increase doesn’t even take into account likely increases in health
insurance costs that are currently not known.

TODAY’S
BEST OF MYSHORTPENCIL.COM
• SEE
A LIST OF THIS WEEK’S COMMENTARIES
• More
Stories on Teacher Unions & Salaries

In addition, scheduled salary scale step increases for teachers and other
district employees are projected at about $850,000 next year. On top of these
two huge cost increases is the fact that the current budget (fiscal 2004) for
the district is projected to use a little over $900,000 of the district’s fund
balance to balance the books this year. Guess what - that’s pretty much the
entire fund balance of the district. This means that the district won’t be able
to use fund balance again next year.

Add all this up and you get a budget hole of about $2,900,000 for fiscal 2005.
Where’s this going to come from? Additional CBJ (City and
Borough of Juneau) contribution? Not likely - the Assembly already funds
the district at the maximum amount allowed by state law (the "cap").
In fact, our Assembly is already using creative means to fund district
activities outside of the cap where permitted by state law. Local taxes? Nope,
due to legal equity issues - as local residents we are not even allowed to
additionally tax ourselves to cover a district shortfall. The state Legislature?
Possibly, but that would require the use of some permanent fund earnings,
additional income or sales taxes or the like. So far, they’ve proven unwilling
to use any of these means to increase revenue. And remember, they’ve got to
balance the state budget before they increase the amount provided to school
districts and other local governments.

Nope, this most likely means the district’s financial hole will be filled by
some combination of laying off a lot of teachers and other staff, cutting or
eliminating programs, or even potentially more drastic measures like closing
schools (certainly closing an elementary school would save some money?).

These are some tough issues, but the fact of the matter is, they are on the
horizon. The current school board members as well as the successful board
candidates (there are 12 candidates running for five
seats) are going to face these as they prepare next year’s budget. I’m
all for teacher’s getting paid more on top of their step increases. Certainly
they deserve to be paid well for their hard work. But I want to be sure that we
don’t have to lay off a bunch of teachers or take even more drastic measurers in
the process, something the board is likely going to have to do anyway.

Between
this article and this
prior story, Juneau residents have a complete, no-spin, factual picture of
school district finances. I commend the school, the authors of the stories and
the newspaper for doing this. In New York, all we get are school district press
releases that distort the truth, especially by reporting a tiny teacher
sacrifice as if it completely offsets compensation increases that are reported
in ways to make them look as small as possible. (See, e.g., Carl Strock’s [Saratoga
Springs] teachers’ raises more than billed.)

Here we learn that salaries reported as ranging
from $33,591 to $64,694 actually result in earnings or total compensation
of between $46,222 and $81,057 per year. That means the public hears teachers
are paid between 25% and 38% less than they actually earn! Pension
and health insurance contributions aren’t just given away because teachers are
good people. They are part of the pay. Based on a
survey from Education Week, this means that these teachers are earning
between $28.39 and $49.79 per hour based on total compensation and time spent on
school work outside the normal school day. (Yet, at these hourly rates,
teachers routinely complain they aren’t paid for work done outside the normal
school day. See, e.g., Teachers
threaten new tack).

But hold your polar bears!
Teachers want a step increase. The school board has agreed to give it. I
don’t know how much a step increase is worth in Juneau–it depends on how many
steps are in the salary schedule–but here’s the Fairbanks
(Alaska) North Star Borough School District’s salary schedule. As you can
see, its bottom and top salaries are very close to Juneau’s. On this salary
schedule, a step amounts to an average 3.1% per year. (In Scotia-Glenville a
step averages 3.5%). 3.1% step increases are way above what most workers and
many teachers receive. (See, Florida
lawmakers consider paying teachers $100,000).

So, based on the school district’s offer, which includes a step increase for
all but the top-step teachers, the total percentage increase in compensation
being offered to teachers ranges from 4.5 to 8.2%! The teachers want a
compensation increase of between 6.3 and 9.9%! You
see how a modest request for a 2% increase in salary really translates into a
huge 9.9% pay raise? Teachers are no dummies when it comes to concealing the
true amount of their compensation increases and school board members play along
to save their political hides. Under the
teacher’s plan, a first year teacher last year would see an hourly increase in
compensation of $2.81 an hour to $31.20 from $28.39. A teacher on the top step
would receive an increase of $3.14 an hour to $52.93 from $49.79.

In my opinion, it is fiscal malfeasance during times of economic difficulty
to offer public servants increases in compensation that exceed the rate of
inflation unless the residents of the school district can afford it or the
employees offer something of equal value in return for the increase above the
rate of inflation. By "afford it" I mean at a minimum the roads
are fixed, the elderly and poor have adequate food, housing and medical care and
the schools are properly supplied with teachers, technology, books, libraries
and classroom space. If any of these are lacking, the tax money should go
to these before giving employees inflation-busting raises.

With median household income, when adjusted for inflation,
falling
1.1 percent to $42,409 last year and inflation running under 2%, the
teachers’ demands and the school board’s offer are a disrespectful
"slap in the face" to students and taxpayers.

So, how is it that school boards offer, and teachers demand, compensation
increases far exceeding the rate of inflation? It’s simple. First, the
public believes teacher compensation is much lower than it really is. Second,
the public is misled by reportedly small increases in salary that mask huge
increases in compensation. Third, teachers hold the power to strike and the
ability to leverage parental inconvenience with resultant childcare costs into
higher salaries, and/or they hold the power to compel mandatory arbitration
before hearing officers that routinely require school districts to compensate
teachers at rates much higher than inflation.}

The right to strike or to compel mandatory arbitration for total compensation increases in excess of the rate of inflation on salaries exceeding the national average by more than 1%, adjusted for local living costs, must be terminated for all government workers, including educators. If public employers and school boards want to offer more, it’s their choice. Moreover, increases in compensation should not be stated in terms of fixed percentages, but in terms of annualized inflation rates. In all cases, increases in compensation above the rate of inflation must be earned, not given away.

Note: I have telescoped the pension increase into the
current year in this example, however, I do not believe it is a distortion of
the truth. Next year, when the pension payment increases are required, teachers
will want a cost of living increase plus additional contributions to their
health insurance premiums, which are likely to rise about as much as they rose
this year. Moreover, contracts often cover three or more years. Finally, even
without counting the increase in pension costs in the current year, the teachers
are seeking raises of between 3.6% (for top-scale teachers) and 8.1% (for the
rest), including the step and health insurance increase.

When it comes to bad news, NY government and schools always seek cover. In this
case, they blame the stock market for increased pension costs knowing everyone
understands the market has fallen and they aren’t responsible for that. What you
rarely hear about is the part they are responsible for–salaries rising faster
than inflation and automatic cost-of-living increases. And while people are
living longer, that doesn’t mean the increased pension costs can’t be passed on
to the teachers rather than the public. As noted above, Alaska teachers
contribute 8.65% of their salaries toward their pensions. New York teachers pay
3% of their salaries for their first 10 years towards their government pensions
and nothing after that.

Teachers pump up pressure on district
Arbitrator for faculty contracts to meet with teachers and district officials on
Oct. 1
By ERIC FRY / Juneau Empire
Originally posted September
20, 2003

The right to strike or to compel mandatory arbitration for total compensation increases in excess of the rate of inflation on salaries exceeding the national average by more than 1%, adjusted for local living costs, must be terminated for all government workers, including educators. If public employers and school boards want to offer more, it’s their choice. Moreover, increases in compensation should not be stated in terms of fixed percentages, but in terms of annualized inflation rates. In all cases, increases in compensation above the rate of inflation must be earned, not given away.

See,
also, Part
2 — A Primer on Teacher Contracts and Part
Three.

Juneau’s teachers, working without a contract so far this school year, are
stepping up public pressure on the school district.

Nonbinding arbitration is scheduled for Oct. 1 to resolve the contract dispute.
The teachers’ two-year contract ended June 30. Teachers make from $33,591 to
$64,694 a year.

Please
take note, S-G. The cost
of living in Alaska is 28.2% above the national average compared to NY’s
19.6%, which is inflated because of NYC. Schenectady’s cost of living is about
10% above the national average due exclusively to high taxes which are primarily
driven by the high salaries and benefits of government employees, including
teachers.

S-G teachers earn between $34,000 and $70,194 per year, excluding add-ons,
and pay about 11% of the cost of their health insurance. They contribute about
$11,500 toward pensions that will pay in excess of $1.3 million to each teacher
(excluding future state-mandated annual cost of living pension increases) free
of state income tax, assuming a 30-year career and 30-year retirement.

If both parties don’t accept the arbitrator’s decision, the district and the
teachers are obligated to meet at least once to resolve the dispute. If they
can’t reach an agreement, the district is entitled to impose its last, best
offer, and the teachers can strike.

TODAY’S
BEST OF MYSHORTPENCIL.COM
• SEE
A LIST OF THIS WEEK’S COMMENTARIES
• More
Stories on Teacher Unions & Salaries

* * *

Teachers, in their final offer during negotiations in May, asked for 2 percent
increases in the salary schedule’s rates, an increase in the district’s
contribution toward health-insurance premiums from $550 a month per person to
$635, and an increase in elementary teachers’ preparation time from at least 150
minutes a week to 250 minutes.

Here’s
a school board that’s done something right. Rather than pay a percentage of the
health insurance costs, it contributes a flat sum. If the cost of health
insurance goes up, the teachers pay it.

When school boards discuss pay increases for teachers they should talk about
only one percentage–the total percentage increase based on the total
compensation package. That percentage increase should not exceed the rate of
inflation without getting something of equivalent value from the teachers. After
the school and the teachers agree on the percentage increase, then the teachers
can decide how to divvy up the increase between salary and health insurance.

Teachers now pay the equivalent of $243 a month toward health-insurance premiums
of $793, said Anderson of NEA-Alaska.

Here
we learn that Juneau teachers are paying 31% of the $9,516 cost of their health
insurance. S-G residents take note. Not only do Juneau teachers earn less in a
state with higher living costs than Schenectady County’s, they contribute about
$156 more per month toward health insurance than S-G’s teachers.

The district has said it’s willing to pay $85 more a month for the premiums.

The School Board also recently authorized teachers to move up what are called
the steps and columns of the salary schedule this school year, even without a
new contract. The previous contract, negotiated in 2001, was intended to free up
money to allow for movement up the schedule without it being negotiated with
each contract.

How
about that, whether or not teachers moved up on steps was previously a matter of
contract negotiations. In S-G, it’s automatic.

The schedule pays eligible teachers more money for added years of experience and
further college credits. Union officials said this spring that about 30 percent
of teachers have reached the top point of the schedule. Those teachers would
make more money only if the salary schedule’s pay rates are raised, or if new
steps are added to top end of the schedule.

S-G
did both in its last contract. But wait! The Juneau board has agreed to pay $85
more per month toward health insurance. As pointed out earlier, that’s a minimum
1.4% increase in compensation. The highest paid teachers would take home $85
more a month than they do now.

It’s simply an utter falsehood, as demonstrated, above. However, teachers unions
universally lie about teacher compensation.

"They haven’t offered anything except step and column," teacher
negotiator Sara Hannan said Tuesday of movement up the schedule. "Our step
and column funds itself."

This
is another lie teachers tell. How does an enterprise that earns no income and no
profits fund its own step increases? It can’t, but I’ll tell you the fairy tale
used to back up that statement.

The consequence of all this is school spending increases that run two to three
times the rate of inflation. Salaries go up at the rate of inflation. So do
other costs, except energy and health insurance, which exceed the rate of
inflation. Teachers and school boards pretend that the funding of health
insurance is not a pecuniary part of teacher compensation but an in-kind
benefit, so this disproportionately increases costs. Schools have been reducing
teacher productivity (reducing class sizes) plus adding technology. Security,
counseling services, after school programs and sports programs have all been
expanded or converted from volunteers to paid staff. School boards also find
themselves maintaining older buildings at greater costs. Consequently, spending
on K-12 education has dramatically outpaced inflation. Under circumstances such
as these, the fictional concepts of self-funded steps and health insurance as
a non-pecuniary benefit have to end. Schools need to be applying the
"savings" from retiring teachers to needs other than just increasing
the compensation of teachers.

The school district’s new one-year contracts with administrators - such as
principals - and support staff - such as custodians and instructional assistants
- included movement up the salary schedule and $85 more a month toward
health-insurance premiums.

A
step with a 15% increase in district contributions toward health insurance.
That’s unarguably generous.

Cowan said the district is interested in equity among the collective bargaining
units, and has budgeted for higher district payments for health-insurance
premiums for the teachers.

Kevin Hamrick, a teachers union negotiator, addressed the School Board on
Tuesday, saying he was speaking as a parent and community member. He said there
are ways to save money without cutting teachers and services. He cited the money
the district is spending on a consultant during teacher negotiations.

Just
because money can be saved does not mean it ought to go to the teachers first.
There are other needs.

Increases in compensation in excess of the rate of inflation must be earned,
not given away. Schools boards owe it to the public to get something in
exchange for increasing teacher compensation beyond the rate of inflation.

"Every time we talk about budget cuts, it’s how many teachers are we going
to cut," Hamrick said.

It’s
a consequence of the cost structure teachers and arbitrators have imposed on
school districts. Teachers always have the option of saying, "You
know, we’ve been getting compensation increases well in excess of the rate of
inflation. How about we skip the step increase or the cost of living increase
this year to save some teacher jobs? We’ll do it for the students."

In
other places, even high-school-degreed janitors have been willing to give up
raises to save jobs. It makes for easier work and cleaner schools. If our highly
educated and far better paid teachers had the same sense as our janitors, it
would make for easier teaching and better learning.

The district reduced about $1.74 million from this school year’s budget to
balance it. The district, in a budget document, listed movement up the salary
schedule and increased health-insurance premiums for all employees as major cost
increases.

HEY!
I thought movement up the salary schedule was "self-funded"!

Among the cuts were the equivalent of about six teaching positions, early
afternoon kindergarten buses, after-school activity buses, and delays in buying
textbooks.

Contract talks stalled By Allison Sherry / Denver Post Staff Writer Mar. 25, 2005 Do these teachers look impoverished? Watch a Video of the Teachers’ Rally DPS salary schedule with contract settlement

Close to 1,000 raucous teachers gathered in front of the Denver Public Schools
administration building during a wet and frigid rush hour Thursday in hopes of
getting more pay and planning time in their contract this fall.

They toted signs that read, "Teachers did not take a vow of
poverty" and "Stop the Abuse."

Here’s the DPS teacher salary schedule. A teacher with a master’s degree starts at $32,000 and tops out at $61,622. The poverty rate for a family of three is about $15,000. Even the truly impoverished behave better than the teachers. Do you see minimum wage workers demanding more "respect"? And what about taxpayers whose taxes have persistently increased faster than inflation to pay for education? Are they out on the streets demanding more respect? It’s beyond the pale that a group of highly educated "professionals" can have the audacity to compare their salaries to those of the impoverished. Not only should they be ashamed of themselves, everything they say should be summarily disregarded. They should not be acknowledged as education leaders when they exaggerate and distort the truth for their own economic benefit. It’s not only unbecoming as a professional, it’s unethical. It’s bullying. It’s abuse of the public trust given to teachers. Students: Don’t grow up to be like these teachers. Be honest and judicious. I have some advice for these teachers–Get off the streets, go back to your classrooms and work like these Quintilian Award-winning teachers: Jill Sayuri Nakamura, Sally Prince, Rafe Esquith and Leroy McClure. If, as a profession, teachers did this and provided the public with the education services and outcomes it expects, then teachers would have all the pay and benefits they could ever reasonably desire.

The rally comes after DPS and the Denver Classroom Teachers Association ended
contract negotiations earlier this month at an impasse.

Among the sticking points: The district wants secondary teachers to teach one
more class period a day, and the proposed salary increase includes only a 0.1
percent cost-of-living allowance, as well as the regular step increases.

Which,
when combined with increases in health insurance benefits paid by the district,
provides raises that almost certainly exceed the size of inflation.

But many teachers said their ire has more to do with respect than cash.

Melissa Underwood, a North High English teacher, said she resents giving up free
time to teach six classes a day instead of five.

TODAY’S
BEST OF MYSHORTPENCIL.COM
• SEE
A LIST OF THIS WEEK’S COMMENTARIES
• More
Stories on Teachers’ Unions & Salaries
• Compare
your salary to any teacher’s

"The grading would just pile up more," she said. "And they don’t
like to give us time to plan. Planning is a bad word in this district."

Underwood said that an increase in health-insurance rates this fall means that
she wouldn’t see the cost-of-living raise.

Health
insurance is salary paid in-kind. The cost-of-living increase is the
increased salary that is being paid to purchase health insurance.

"I have 17 years experience and a master’s degree, and I’m only making
$50,000," she said.

She’s
almost certainly lying. Check
the salary schedule. The minimum she should be making is $53,935 plus a
longevity payment. If she had earned some extra credits, she could be making
$61,622 plus a longevity payment.

$50,000 is very likely at least $10,000 a year more than a teacher in the
private sector earns in Denver. It’s more than many professionals with
humanities-type degrees earn. It’s simply not a bad deal, especially considering
job security, benefits, retirement and vacations. Anyone who thinks it’s a bad
deal is free to take his/her skills into the private sector to see what s/he can
earn there. Apparently, over 3 million teachers in the U.S. think they’re doing
about as well as they can expect to do economically. Either that or they’d
rather be teachers than do the kind of work needed to earn higher salaries.

* * *

Gabe DeMola, an English teacher at West High, said the district’s "attitude
hurts me. Increasing class sizes and increasing workloads, it’s all contrary to
the reform. … And ultimately it’s disrespectful to the kids."

It
looks to me like the kids are getting dumped on from both sides. So, what else
is new?

* * * *