All the major news outlets are now reporting that District 150 teachers have agreed to the school board’s proposed contract. 1470-AM WMBD is reporting that teachers signed a 3-year contract:

At issue were wages, specifically the district’s request for a “hard freeze”; that is, no raise even for additional experience or education. Now, teachers will get that “step” increase second semester this year, along with a raises of 1% and 1.75% in years two and three of the contract, respectively.

Huh. 1% raises for teachers. And, um, how much of a raise for administrators? Oh, that’s right — 33% for the Associate Superintendents. I think the teachers should have called the district’s bluff. But I’m sure several of them were scared by the threat of replacement workers.

I guess in District 150’s book, having teacher pay not keep up with inflation while administrator pay skyrockets is “what’s best for the children.”

UPDATE: Here’s a little more detail from WHOI (channel 19):

Here are some key points about the new contract. It allows for lane changes. That means teachers will be paid more for the more education they receive. It also allows for step increases, meaning teachers get increases based on the number of years they’ve taught. Base pay raises are included in the second and third years of the contract. It’s a three year deal.

In today’s Journal Star classifieds:

Employment Opportunity with Peoria Public Schools Peoria, Illinois Peoria Public Schools, Peoria, Illinois, has immediate openings for: SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS Qualifications: B.A./B.S. degree; must meet all other eligibility requirements required by Illinois School Code. Send resume and letter of interest to: Peoria School District 150 Human Resources Dept. 3202 N. Wisconsin Dept. Peoria, IL 61603 Attn: Substitute Teacher, We are an Equal Opportunity Employer.

Kind of a hardball tactic during contract negotiations. On the other hand, how many substitute teachers want to be scabs for District 150?

District 150 teachers are on the brink of a strike, and negotiations don’t appear to be moving very quickly. Yet the Journal Star mentions in passing (emphasis mine), “[Superintendent] Hinton, who did not attend the negotiations, said both sides seemed to be understanding each other better after Friday’s talks.”

Why isn’t Hinton attending the negotiations? According to the District 150 Board of Education Policy Manual the first thing on the list under “Powers and Duties” for the superintendent is that he shall “attend all meetings of the Board, shall be a member of all committees, and shall attend all meetings of the same, except when his or her own appointment, performance, contract, or salary are being considered.”

Perhaps there is a really good explanation, but the paper doesn’t state what it is. I know the guy isn’t going to attend every meeting in the world, but wouldn’t you think that, of all meetings, these might be some of the most important ones for him to attend?

Time doesn’t appear to be an issue. He had time to draft an undated letter to the teachers with a line some have interpreted as a veiled threat (“options have been prepared for our families in the event of a work stoppage”) and another line that is a bald-faced lie (“two school buildings were closed this year”; Blaine-Sumner was not closed, but simply repurposed for administrative use).

It’s just another credibility gap. Of course, that isn’t the only one in these negotiations. I’ll just mention again, in case anyone has forgotten, Associate Superintendents Cindy Fischer and Herschel Hannah are budgeted to receive raises totaling approximately $60,000 between the two of them. These are positions that are completely unnecessary in the first place. They were created to replace Kay Royster on an interim basis until a new full-time superintendent could be found. Then they stuck around after Hinton was hired to give him time to be certified. Then they were made permanent. And now these huge salary raises are scheduled for same year they want a “hard freeze” on teacher salaries.

And what about the $877,000 in premature property acquisition adjacent to Glen Oak Park that the school board authorized this year? The Park Board has yet to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the school district on sharing park land for a new school there — although that meeting is coming up next Wednesday (Dec. 13).

One will pardon the teachers for being skeptical of Hinton’s claim: “While we have taken serious steps to address the deficit, we have remained focused on our core business — student achievement.”

If you’re interested in reading all of Hinton’s letter, a PDF version of it is available on Clare Jellick’s Education Blog, and the text can be seen here by clicking the “Show More” link below.

|inline

District 150 teachers have given notice they may strike as early as Dec. 12. Why? The Journal Star reports:

The sticking point is pay. The district has proposed a “hard” wage freeze for the first year of a multiple-year contract, meaning there would be no raise to the base pay and no pay increases for gains in experience or education. The union, however, is proposing a soft freeze, which means there would be pay increases for experience and education but no raise to the base pay.

This is the same district that is planning on giving two administrators each roughly a $30,000/yr. raise. How is it that they can afford to give exorbitant raises to administrators but are destitute to give teachers a raise even when they gain experience and education? The district can’t have it both ways.

Obviously Shadid is going to try to override the Governor’s veto on SB2477, regardless of his reported indecisiveness in this story in today’s Journal Star. So it’s not worth commenting on that much. But what I found particularly troubling in the article was this statement from district treasurer Guy Cahill:

Cahill, after being told of Shadid’s comments on Friday, said the issue “comes down to whether or not” Peoria wants to replace 100-year-old school buildings and provide jobs for construction workers who are nearing the end of the extensive Interstate 74 renovation project.

“The timing for new school construction couldn’t be better, in our minds, to keep people at work,” Cahill said.

First of all, since when is it the school board’s job to “provide jobs for construction workers”? Is that an unwritten part of District 150’s mission and strategies?

Not long ago, when statements were made that the school board’s planned building did not jibe with the Heart of Peoria Plan, then school board member Garrie Allen stated in no uncertain terms that such “urban renewal” is not the school board’s job, but the city’s. Which do you think will help school children more: long-term strategies for neighborhood stabilization or short-term construction jobs?

Secondly, the first part of his statement is a bald-faced lie. If the issue came down to whether or not “Peoria wants to replace 100-year-old buildings,” the school board would get authorization to do so via referendum instead of state legislation designed to bypass Peoria voters! In reality, the issue comes down to whether voters should be allowed to decide how the school board spends our money, or whether the school board gets a blank check for $60 million in construction money on our tab.