With the recent events in Wisconsin it may be time to reviw a topic on thsi board several years ago - teacher salaries. A little bit of research revealed the following information:

The contracts teacher union contracts posted on the District website shows all teachers have been getting an approx. 4% cost of living adjustment each year since 2007. This seems out of line since private sector employees a have seem little or no increase in wages since the economy tanked in 2007. I know many who have taken on additional responsbilities with no additional compensation as their co-workers were terminated.

This is what made me want to do a little more research.

In 2010 the District employed approximately 667 teachers. Of those approx. 228 made over $100,000 or 34% (championnews.net). According to Wikipedia "Affluence in America" 5.63% of employed persons make over $100k. OK, well we want our teachers to be educated people, right? According to this same Wikipedia article the average white person with a master's degree makes $61,273 in 2006 (it may have gone DOWN since then).

Does it seem to anyone else the teacher unions have way too much power? Are there any ideas on ways to address their weilding power at public expense?

I find this data to be shocking.

Hard to say- Wi has by most evaluations the 3rd or 4th best public education system in the country. Not to say the US exactly shines in education but "right to work" states are dead last. Lets not race to the bottom though obviously I agree there's room for improvement in pay.

But Masters degree makes $61k? Need to correct for cost of living and years of experience 'cause that's not much in DuPage County.

And, gosh, Wikipedia? Not exactly the most authoritative citation in all the world. $60,000 for a master's sounds low to me too - unless the person is 23 or so and first year of work.

Carnut,

The actual salary increases are much more than 4%. For example, go to page 63 of the D87 contract. Use the MA+45 column as an example. For ’07-’08 salary schedule, the teacher with 1 year experience earns $52,355. Now, for the next year, look at the ’08-’09 salary schedule, the teacher now has 2 years of experience so that salary is $56,393 a 7.7% increase over the prior year. For ’09-’10, with 3 years experience, the teacher earns $60,600, a 7.5% increase over the prior year, ’10-’11, 4 years experience, $65,457, a 8% increase, finally, ’11-’12, 5 years exp. Nets $70,566, a 7.8% increase. The ‘3-4%’ number we hear thrown around is merely the salary increase for a MA+45 teacher from one year to the next assuming the same amount of experience, which is not reality.

The Watcher has it. A lot of teacher contracts are written like a spreadsheet, but only the top left cell (the "base" pay) changes. All other cells go up as a factor of the base. Teachers will move one row down on the spreadsheet for every year of service, generally, and they may move a column over based upon degrees or credit hours earned. But the change in factors from one cell to the next is not necessarily linear.

Most teachers don't pay into ss meaning they don't get ss benefits. Actually if I remember correctly when my wife worked as a clerk in scholarships many decades ago at an Il univ she didn't pay into SS either. Conveniently forgotten in the "O my gosh they get such great benefits" debate.

Bio and Darlili - I agree 61K is not much in Dupage period. But that was not my point, more on that later. Wiki is an easy source to impugn and that's why I referenced the article but it is actually called "Affluence in America". It draws heavily from U S Census Bureau data and statistics and heavily cited. If you check it out you won't argue with it unless you have a spare month to cross check your data sources.

Watcher - I did not have time to fully digest the contract tables but saw the annual increaases were at least 4% but with your explanation it is almost double that.

The reason I looked into this is I have met some very smart, successful people who feel a portion of the path to Statewide fiscal responsibility begins by looking at public salaries. So I thought I would do some easy research close to home.

1/3 of the teachers in 87 make about $120k with 7% annual increase. By way of comparison the Village Manager position posted on this very site has 120 reports, responsiblity for a $40mm budget and works 12 months a year for $140k. This by the way is reasonable. The Village Manager of Palatine (not much bigger than GE) makes over $350,000 per year and you would not believe the "perks" that were part of cash payments compensation. I can give you a website with the details if anyone wants their stomach to turn. The average State Governer makes about $160k. I don't think the Governers belong to a union.

Want to know why the State income tax rate went almost doubled? Unfunded pension liability.

So I finally get to my point: have public salaries become almost completely disconnected with private sector compensation? The answer is pretty clear to me.

So who has ideason what to do about it?

Double check - hte Wiki article is "Affluence in the United States"

quote:

Want to know why the State income tax rate went almost doubled? Unfunded pension liability.

So I finally get to my point: have public salaries become almost completely disconnected with private sector compensation? The answer is pretty clear to me.

Seems unrelated to me.

Yes I see my point about the unfunded pension liaiblities may have been off point.

I was actually referncing the 7% annual increase in teachers salaries. That's not been happening in the private sector.

quote:

Originally posted by Biostitute:
Most teachers don't pay into ss meaning they don't get ss benefits. Actually if I remember correctly when my wife worked as a clerk in scholarships many decades ago at an Il univ she didn't pay into SS either. Conveniently forgotten in the "O my gosh they get such great benefits" debate.

So you are telling me, teachers would rather trade in their current pension for ss? I doubt it. The current ss system requires employees to pay in 6.2% of their pay in order to receive a max of ~$30,000/yr after they reach age 67. This SS deduction is taxed even though the taxpayer never gets their hand on it.

The TRS? Teachers qualify for a pension worth 75% of the last 4 years average of their salary after 27 years of service. If a teacher starts their career as late as age 25, then they retire with the full benefits at age 52.

Oh but wait, you say, teachers are required to kick in 9.4% of their pay for their pension. (of which is all tax exempt.) Yes, Illinois law indicates this, however, 39% of all teachers have their contribution covered by the district and pay $0 into the system. The next 24% of all teachers have their contribution subsidized and only contribute 2% of their salary into the system. This is 63% of all Illinois teachers paying no where near what you and I have to in order to get any semblance of retirement income.

So, you are right, this part is forgotten in the 'gosh they get great benefits' debate.

I think it is a shame that theachers - and other public employees - are facing an awfully blunt axe of pubic opinion and polical opportunism, when other far wealthier groups played a far greater role in creating our current economic problems.

Having said that, tho, I have long advocated changes to teacher compensation:
-I don't understand why the rules of supply and demand do not apply. Why is a gym teacher paid the same as a Physics teacher? And why is a librarian or tech person paid the same as a calculus teacher?
-I CANNOT beieve that such outrageous salaries and generous pensions are necessary to attract decent administrators - and I consider administration overall to be bloated.
-Districts should be aggressively consolidated.
-And if salaries are going to remain where they are, then let's increase the school day/year to get our money's worth.

It is easy to blame the unions, but I find equally culpable the boards of ed that cave in to their demands.

As President Obama mentioned in the State of the Union, it is vital that the brightest and best of our generation choose education as our profession -not only to ensure the leadership of our country on a global front, but also because that's where the money is at.

quote:

Originally posted by ackerman:
We voters need to do the same with 41 and 87, but we can't do that without 2 things-having strong candidates(mostly missing yesterday) and, VOTING.

BRAVO, ackerman. You mirror my thoughts precisely!

In celebrating the victories of Cornell, Mayo and Dunn . . . “congrats” and well deserved, by the way, as well as a positive step for the GE Park District . . . I can’t help but succumb to my biennial depression that, by comparison, school board races attract such a limited field of qualified candidates.

With all due respect to the intense interest in the Park District . . . its impact on our daily lives does not rise nearly to the threshold of that of our school districts. School board members determine nothing short of 70-80% of our massive, burdensome property tax bills . . . and the education of our children.

Personally, I can’t think of any two items that should harness a community’s attention more . . . a sentiment that is perennially born out by surveys showing “schools and property taxes” at the top of the list of Glen Ellyn residents’ concerns. And yet, every two years, we face the same quandary. Very few citizens . . . much less a well-organized slate (!) . . . willing to step out of the crowd, and run for these critical board seats.

Every two years, we seem to go into the voting booth with precious little to choose from . . . a staggering phenomenon period, but especially so in a 45-square-mile school district the size of Glenbard.

Even worse, on those rare occasions when we do manage to attract an enviable crop of qualified candidates . . . to wit: many of the write-in field that ran for D87 in 2009 . . . voters can’t even take time from re-arranging their sock drawers to support them with their votes!

Does it dumbfound anyone else that two of the board members currently serving at D87 . . . and making critical decisions vis-a-vis our taxes, our children and our town . . . were elected to their seats two years ago with a total of 1,242 and 1,094 write-in votes respectively when only two “official” candidates even bothered to file for four open seats on the Board?

The ennui is staggering.

District 87 is a mammoth district. With a total of 95,269 registered voters, it is larger than many congressional districts. Board members are responsible for the oversight of a $150 million budget and the high school education of 9,000 students. What a complete outrage that two-sevenths of the present board is sitting at the table courtesy of 0.01% of the voters.

Yesterday could hardly be described as impressive either. The D87 race marshaled a 13% turnout (12,520 voters). Elementary D41 fared slightly better with a 15% showing . . . 2,838 out of 18,390 registered.

“Pathetic” is right!

That said, however, major kudos to Mary Ozog. I am heartened to see a candidate with her pedigree have the commitment to get into the race . . . and succeed! Her statistical dead-heat for “top vote-getter” with a three-term incumbent, current president of the D87 Board, is impressive to stay the least. I suspect that Mary will be a breath of fresh air, and bring some much-needed independent perspective. No rubber stamp in that seat!

The nagging conundrum, however . . . the one that continues to numb what’s left of my mind . . . is that voters should have had three or four candidates of Mary’s calibre to choose from . . . a la the Park District race. Not just one.

It’s not too soon to start fast-forwarding. 2013 will be here in a flash.

Thanks for the kind words, Melbourne. And the only thing I can and will promise is that I will not be a rubber stamp.

I'd complain about the salaries of the teachers and the quality of our schools if the value of my property had dropped as much as the surrounding communities...but it didn't. Apparently, there are some things in this community that people are willing to pay for.

A couple of naive questions:

1. Why can't you fire or replace or replace stiking teachers - Illinois law? If so changing that should become a high priority to enable local fiscal responsibility. Let the market decide.

2. Why the shortage of qualified school board candidates? No one can match a techer's union negotiator? See point #1. Something is wrong with two people being on the board with under 1500 votes.

quote:

Originally posted by Informedtaxpayer:
I'd complain about the salaries of the teachers and the quality of our schools if the value of my property had dropped as much as the surrounding communities...but it didn't.

I'm curious how you would be able to reach such a conclusion without having sold your home recently - as well as at various times in the past. The only way to accurately assess the value of your house is to sell it.

The current model for teacher contract negotiations is interest based bargaining. I have served on this committee in my district. The process is not 2 groups sitting across from one another fighting it out. All data- financial, academic, and administrative is shared. Desires of all in the room are shared. Then both the school board/administration and the teachers look at the data and come up with ideas for the contract. The ideas are shared and discussed. When this type of negotiations is done, there would be little drive for strikes- especially over salary and compensation as the teachers fully know the budget. Work conditions not in the school code would be a bigger points in the process perhaps from a teacher perspective.