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.
Wow – what a slap in the face of the teachers! The previous salary schedules also allowed for experience and lane changes – in other words, they added a year of experience and, when completed, advanced a lane to the right on the salary schedule when educational requirements were completed and verified by transcript. But, the lane and step increases have been much “richer” in the past – usually around 3 – 4%.
Compared to the 33% – 40% administrative pay increases, this is paltry indeed. Is this an accurate reflection of the administration’s estimation of its teaching staff? And what does this say about the administration’s opinion of the student population? Don’t they deserve quality teachers focused on teaching & learning, and motivated to do everything possible to improve student achievement?
Once again, it is the children of Peoria who will ultimately suffer from this mess.
A 1 to 1.75% increase? Aren’t cost of living adjustments typically in the range of 2% per year? I know when I worked at a university a 2% annual raise was pretty much standard, and with good performance evaluations you would get 3 or 4% increases annually. Sounds like the teachers got shafted – as usual.
Great … let’s create even more disincentive for intelligent hard-working people to enter the teaching profession.
If the finances are as bad at D150 as we hear they are, we should be glad that they settled at that level of raise. It is much better to have a small raise then for the District to have to layoff staff (or worse borrow money) in order to pay for the payraises granted in the contacts. In prior years, the teachers received increases well above average and cost of living – even in the midst of a huge budget deficit. Not out of line to ask them to contribute to solving the problem a little.
Having said that, the timing of the raises for the two asst. superintendent’s is not good and the administration should have thought about that a little. But even so, a large raise for two individuals has no where near the financial impact as a raise for the majority of employees in the District. The damage is more to the relationship between the employees and the administration due to the perceptions it creates.
The editorial today is amazing. The editorial board is more concerned about the PPD Board’s credibility with Dist. 150 officials than its credibility with the community, and its responsibility to follow the law.
The presentation scheduled for this Wednesday at the PPD Board meeting should have been done back in March, instead of the secret discussions the 2 Boards had back then.
Just wait until the minimum wage goes up and various goods and services start costing more. See how much that salary increase is good for then.
“Great … let’s create even more disincentive for intelligent hard-working people to enter the teaching profession.”
Don’t worry — District 150’s already doing an excellent job of that. They told me I wasn’t competent or educated enough to teach for them — because I don’t have a teaching certificate. I’m not eligible for their “career changing” program until I’ve been out of school and working for at least 5 years. Graduate school does not count as “working.” Apparently 150 isn’t all that interested in intellectual work. (And 150’s career-changer program is absolute CRAP compared to other urban areas I’ve lived in, and it takes forever here.)
I have to wonder if the pittance that they flung at the teachers will come back to haunt them. It can’t be good for teacher retention, and it certainly can’t be appealing to new teachers applying for jobs. With already large student to teacher ratios, as well as poor pay for those teachers, there is not a lot of incentive to keep District 150’s current standing as a good school.
Also, I would think that their ability to attract new teachers who are good at what they do decreases considerably when they approve contracts that allow for such a split in raises between the administration and the teachers. It sends a message to the teachers about where the District’s priorities lie, whether it is to balance the budget or not.
Don’t forget they are getting a cap on insurance costs in years 2 & 3. These days that’s worth a lot and probably why older teachers voted for it.
As the spouse of a teacher in Dist 150, I can assure you that many, many of the teachers are livid about this contract. You’ll note, they have not released the vote totals. I suspect it was a very, very close vote to reject the offer. You also have not seen it reported that the salary adjustments are effective Jan 1st 2007 and are not retroactive to the beginning of the school year, another negative aspect of the contract. Many senior teachers who have topped out in the salary matrix due to their years of experience will be getting no salary adjustment, i.e. they’re being told they should take a reduction in their standard of living for the distinct pleasure of working for an organization that has been extremely fiscally irresponsible and created such a deficiet that the teachers must now pay for their poor management. Ken Hinton inherited a hell of a mess, but this contract with the teachers is not going to help improve the situation.