Teacher Raises versus Teacher Layoffs

[Crab Rangoon]

I would like to know what people think about the following question:

Is it better for any given teacher to get a raise (say 3% per year) in a three-year contract, or run the risk of being laid off due to budget cuts? Is it better for the school district to give the 3% raise, or to have to make cuts to programming? The scenario is that the coming year's school budget in our district (and many others I am sure) is asking the towns to increase the tax rate for education by 4.7%. This is due mainly (about 98% worth) to cuts in state and federal funding for education. At the same time the proposed 2013 one-year budget includes approximately $300,000 for a 3% raise for teachers.

It is unlikely the towns in this district will pass this budget due to the high tax increase it entails - so it will be back to the board for making cuts to educational programs (including teacher layoffs). Most people in this town, including me, have not seen raises of any kind for the last few years and can not afford higher taxes - so why should the teachers expect and push for raises in these difficult times, especially when it will come at the price of cutting programing for the kids?

I absolutely support the teachers in my child's school - they have been wonderful. If this were a perfect world and I made the rules - they would all get raises every year - and so would I. At what point do you stop pushing to make personal gains and start sacrificing for the greater good? Is it right to expect people to make such a sacrifice?

[Chronos]

Is it better for any given teacher to get a raise (say 3% per year) in a three-year contract, or run the risk of being laid off due to budget cuts?

Is this like a "Cake or death" question?

[Scumpup]

I've been part of the negotiating team for a few contacts. More info needed. What is the district situation WRT administration? How many layers of it are there? Did they take a pay freeze? Did the district trim non-student contact personnel first, or did we jump right to balancing the budget off the teachers?

[Crab Rangoon]

Originally Posted by Scumpup

I've been part of the negotiating team for a few contacts. More info needed. What is the district situation WRT administration? How many layers of it are there? Did they take a pay freeze? Did the district trim non-student contact personnel first, or did we jump right to balancing the budget off the teachers?

Lordy - I just lost a great big post in response to you - let me try again:

The administration is headed by the superintendent, who is involved with (but not in charge of) negotiations with the teacher's unions. The Negotiations Committee (subset of the Board) is in charge of coming up with the contract with the teachers. The overall Board must approve of the final contract. The contract includes the pay raises - which is included in the school budget, which was just approved by the Board, but also needs to get approved by the public at the June referendum. I have very little hope that the budget will get approved by the public.

The teachers have not had a pay freeze - they are getting three years of 3% pay increases in this current contract that is being negotiated - it looks likely it will be approved by the Board - but it has not been finalized as of yet.

The Board's budget committee has put together a budget that has trimmed non-contact positions (secretaries, bus driver, lunch staff) - and tried to trim some contact positions (music teacher down to 2/3 position and vo-tec teacher down to 0.5 position) - but after much public outcry - those two were reinstated (I think justifyibly so).

So - we have some Board members complaining about the position cuts (non-contact positions) - and others complaining about the increase in the budget. So - the 3% pay increase to teachers would allow the tax increase to be less - maybe around 3% instead of 4.7% - which might be enough to get it passed by the public and save all contact positions. Big maybes all around.

[Zakalwe]

Originally Posted by Crab Rangoon

It is unlikely the towns in this district will pass this budget due to the high tax increase it entails - so it will be back to the board for making cuts to educational programs (including teacher layoffs). Most people in this town, including me, have not seen raises of any kind for the last few years and can not afford higher taxes - so why should the teachers expect and push for raises in these difficult times, especially when it will come at the price of cutting programing for the kids?

So if the tax increase were only 4.606% that would be fine? I mean, that's the difference between your stated increase with the salary raise, and the increase without the raise.

If the answer to the above question is "yes" then:
How long has it been since the last raise for teachers? Can the District currently hire teachers to fill the openings they have? In other words, if the District is currently having trouble hiring and/or retaining good teachers, then you and your compatriots will have accepted a significant tax increase and yet left your kids still in trouble (education-wise) for the sake of a 2% savings - not a very wise decision (IMHO).

If you (generically) are opposed to *any* tax increase, then TANSTAAFL. Public school kids from your District are going to be at an economic disadvantage for the rest of their lives.

[Crab Rangoon]

Originally Posted by Zakalwe

So if the tax increase were only 4.606% that would be fine? I mean, that's the difference between your stated increase with the salary raise, and the increase without the raise.

I'm not sure where you are getting this - the total cost of the 3% teacher pay raise for this year would be $300,000. That would cover about half of the tax increase - lowering the overall tax increase to around - 2.8ish%.

Originally Posted by Zakalwe

How long has it been since the last raise for teachers? Can the District currently hire teachers to fill the openings they have? In other words, if the District is currently having trouble hiring and/or retaining good teachers, then you and your compatriots will have accepted a significant tax increase and yet left your kids still in trouble (education-wise) for the sake of a 2% savings - not a very wise decision (IMHO).

If you (generically) are opposed to *any* tax increase, then TANSTAAFL. Public school kids from your District are going to be at an economic disadvantage for the rest of their lives.

I'm not sure how much the teacher's most current raises have been - but there has been no freeze - so they have been getting something. We have had no problem hiring positions when they become vacant. Not many teacher positions have become vacant over the past year - except part time or support positions.

And what does TANSTAAFL stand for?

[FinnAgain]

There Aint No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

[Zakalwe]

Originally Posted by Crab Rangoon

I'm not sure where you are getting this - the total cost of the 3% teacher pay raise for this year would be $300,000. That would cover about half of the tax increase - lowering the overall tax increase to around - 2.8ish%.

Since Finn threw the assist on TANSTAAFL, I'll limit myself to this:

You stated that 98% of the tax increase was to replace lost funding. I assumed a status quo with regard to other costs. If you want the full math I can spell it out, but that's where I was coming from.

Just FYI, based on your numbers though, you must live in a pretty small district. I mean, Leon County, FL (where I live) has a population of about 275K, our school district budget is $244M, with 2,274 "instructional personnel" (I'm assuming this is roughly equivalent to your "contact position" at an average salary of $51K each. So, for us, a 3% teacher raise would cost around $3.4M annually. Could you maybe add some detail about the demographics of the District?

What are your standardized test numbers doing - trending up, down, flat?

[Crab Rangoon]

Originally Posted by Zakalwe

Since Finn threw the assist on TANSTAAFL, I'll limit myself to this:

You stated that 98% of the tax increase was to replace lost funding. I assumed a status quo with regard to other costs. If you want the full math I can spell it out, but that's where I was coming from.

Just FYI, based on your numbers though, you must live in a pretty small district. I mean, Leon County, FL (where I live) has a population of about 275K, our school district budget is $244M, with 2,274 "instructional personnel" (I'm assuming this is roughly equivalent to your "contact position" at an average salary of $51K each. So, for us, a 3% teacher raise would cost around $3.4M annually. Could you maybe add some detail about the demographics of the District?

What are your standardized test numbers doing - trending up, down, flat?

The total amount that we have to raise the budget by due to losses from state and federal funding is around $850,000. We did manage to hold the budget the same as last year by making office staff cuts, consolidating offices and closing one elementary school (moved the 12 students to another school in the district), but the cuts in funding are too much to overcome without serious programming cuts. We are a small district - I would estimate total student count to be approximately 1,700. It is a rural district in central Maine - 5 elementary schools and one high school.

We have increased the scores in the reading achievement testing in the past year - and held steady for math. Two of our schools are in Non-attainment status for NCLB, but one has improved. It's a constant struggle to stay out of the NCLB just because of the constant increases in test scores demanded by it.

I'm not really suggesting that we should get a free ride - but the reality is that people in this area are struggling (as I'm sure is true in many places) - and I am wondering is it better for the teachers to get their raises (I am not saying they don't deserve them - they do), or for the schools to be able to keep the programming they have. If we spend $300,000 for raises - what is that - I'm guessing 7 or 8 positions? I can't even imagine what cutting that much would look like in our small district. We would likely have to cut music, art, sports, and I don't know what else.

We have many retirees in a couple of the towns in the district and the sentiment seems to be that they don't want to pay for education. But who knows, the next step is bringing the budget to town vote - and it may pass. If that happens, we keep on trucking til next year's funding cuts. If it does not pass - then it's time to bring out the axe.

[erislover]

Originally Posted by Crab Rangoon

- so why should the teachers expect and push for raises in these difficult times, especially when it will come at the price of cutting programing for the kids?

You're right, they shouldn't expect it. And when your town says "no," those teachers who feel the benefits of the work are not worth the personal costs should quit and find another school district, or another profession entirely.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by erislover

You're right, they shouldn't expect it. And when your town says "no," those teachers who feel the benefits of the work are not worth the personal costs should quit and find another school district, or another profession entirely.

And then the right-wing who opposed any tax increase can bitch about the sorry state of government run education.

Win-win for them! Lower taxes, AND they get to prove how crappy the government is!

[erislover]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

And then the right-wing who opposed any tax increase can bitch about the sorry state of government run education.

Win-win for them! Lower taxes, AND they get to prove how crappy the government is!

It'd be funny if it weren't likely to be true.

[BlinkingDuck]

I used to teach. I left teaching because the salary was low AND 'raises' didn't even keep up with inflation.

To answer the OP...it depends. What was the average % increase in teacher salaries above/below inflation over the past 20 years? Were promotional salary increases given in this time and what %? What is the starting salary of a teacher in your district compared to a starting engineer? What is the average salary of teachers over 5 years experience compared to teachers with less than 5 years experience?

If teachers salaries were increasing at a good clip over inflation over the past 20 years and then budget problems arise...then teachers need to go without for a bit. When good times come back, it can be made up. {that was a joke son...teachers are always expected to sacrifice in bad times but don't get anything more in good times}. I also highly doubt that the % increase above inflation is even POSITIVE over the past 20 years. If that is so, asking teachers to sacrifice is insane..because they have been doing it all along.

The old argument that teachers are supposed to take pay cuts (and no salary increase = pay cut because of inflation) grates on me. Why are TEACHERS supposed to sacrifice for the kids? Why can't doctors and lawyers? Do auto mechanics charge less this year than last year to help the kids?

In addition, there are supposed to be some promotional raises in there...are do you expect every teacher to make less year after year so that their first year of teaching is when they made the most (after inflation)? How do you expect quality people to make this their career if you do? (I was in this situation).

So, ask yourself....would a young, college educated guy like to come into your district teaching your kids as his career? Would he be able to take a wife, have children and feel at least in the same league as other college educated people working in the same district after 12 years of working?

If your answer is that I am crazy...that teachers are not supposed to expect this...then go ahead...cut education to the bone. You don't give a crap about it anyway.

[Crab Rangoon]

Originally Posted by BlinkingDuck

In addition, there are supposed to be some promotional raises in there...are do you expect every teacher to make less year after year so that their first year of teaching is when they made the most (after inflation)? How do you expect quality people to make this their career if you do? (I was in this situation).

So, ask yourself....would a young, college educated guy like to come into your district teaching your kids as his career? Would he be able to take a wife, have children and feel at least in the same league as other college educated people working in the same district after 12 years of working?

In our district - I don't know if this is common or not - we have about 15 "steps" for teachers. This means, for the first 15 years you teach in our district, you are guaranteed a fairly decent raise. This is also true of state workers (of which I am one) - however, there are only 7 steps in state government and we have had our step raises and any other kind of raises frozen for the past 4 years. So by contrast, the teachers have been "above the fray" so to speak in terms of having had to make sacrifices in the past few years. I don't know the exact amount of the teachers raises over the past 10 years - so I can't tell you if they are keeping ahead of inflation or not.

We offer salaries that are comparable to similar sized districts in our state. We are competitive in that area. Like I said it would be great if we could give everyone raises every year - boy would I kill for even a small raise at this point. I know what it's like to be the vilified worker (have you seen the new statements from Maine's governor lately? We are apparently all corrupt).

Anyhow - I appreciate the responses - and I actually do support the new budget, but there are multiple sides to think about when you have to sell it to the people in your town.

[BlinkingDuck]

Originally Posted by Crab Rangoon

In our district - I don't know if this is common or not - we have about 15 "steps" for teachers. This means, for the first 15 years you teach in our district, you are guaranteed a fairly decent raise.

Really? Funny, when I taught they had these steps as well...but I never received any step. Every year it was 'frozen'.

You sure those teachers are getting their steps? EVERY year??

Are these steps above inflation or do they not include a COLA normally as well? In other words...does a 12 year teacher who STARTED in your district make more (AFTER adjusting for inflation) then when he started?

Sounds like your district needs to close its schools. Merge with a neighbor or something.

[howye]

Listen to the Duck, he quacks the truth.

Plus, OP, if your district made signifcant cuts by closing a school and moving ALL 12 students to another school then something is fundamentally wrong. Was that all 120 or 1200 students maybe?

One item I see missed often in these discussions is the distinction between yearly step increases that are part of the teachers' contract and a negotiated across the board "raise" when a new contract is negotiated. Many school districts have, with the full approval of teaching staff, foregone the yearly step increases. Note that these are the increases that most everybody gets to keep track with inflation, but in the teaching world are usually just small enough that when figured in with the increased amount of health insurance premiums the teachers are expected to pay, equal a pay CUT.

Thus the often seen unwillingness to budge on negotiated raises at contract time. That is the one time the entire staff can get its collective head back above water for a while. Most school districts also recognize the benefits of a one time increase in salaries versus a yearly increase.

But, really instead of focusing your ire upon those greedy teachers, why don't you ask why you have to make up so much in lost state dollars? Bet the state could have cut something else, but chose education dollars.

[even sven]

Times are tough for everyone, but you all can hope that when times get better, your wage will get better. For teacher who plans to keep teaching, they are going to be one a rigid, low-wage pay schedule for the rest of their lives. There is no chance of making that big promotion and starting to make real money. There is no chance of getting a bonus on a good year. It's just a slow, slow rise that hopefully keeps up with inflation. So if those period raises start slipping, you are going to lose that for the rest of your life.

I'm a great teacher, an that is one of the main reasons why I won't even consider teaching in the US. Low wages are less of a problem, but having people resent every penny of those pages is. Teachers are professionals, but they don't get treated like it.

[Crab Rangoon]

Originally Posted by howye

Listen to the Duck, he quacks the truth.

Plus, OP, if your district made signifcant cuts by closing a school and moving ALL 12 students to another school then something is fundamentally wrong. Was that all 120 or 1200 students maybe?


But, really instead of focusing your ire upon those greedy teachers, why don't you ask why you have to make up so much in lost state dollars? Bet the state could have cut something else, but chose education dollars.

Yeah - that's right - 12 students. Like I said - small rural area. What are you gonna do - our overall population keeps decreasing over time. It was past time to close that school.

And I don't mean to come off angry - I just want to get some opinions from both sides. You are right on about the state could have cut other areas or not CUT TAXES FOR THE UPPER WAGE BRACKETS - but we have LePage as governor and a bunch of republicans running the show nowadays. Things are getting tough all over. Try explaining that to the angry public who voted them all in office 1.5 years ago and are now pissed they have to pay more property tax. Cause and effect isn't necessarily many people's strong suit.

[BlinkingDuck]

Preach it Howye.

I also forgot to answer one of the OP's questions!

If the choice is between laying off teachers and keeping salaries about the same (remember...inflation) or cutting the pay of teachers (by keeping salary the same as last year - inflation again)...then lay off teachers. The reason being that you can only do it for so long before you don't have enough teachers to do anything...whereas if you freeze salary you can keep that up forever hurting the teaching "profession" even more. You just keep hiring less and less qualified teachers from the lower dregs of college grads which you then use to justify lower salaries. This is the biggest problem with the teaching "profession" IMO.

[puddleglum]

The good thing about layoffs is that if they are done right they can improve your workforce if you lay off the right people. In most teacher situations the layoffs will go to those with the least seniority. There is some correlation between experience and effectiveness in the first couple of years, so layoffs may slightly improve your workforce. However, younger teachers are usually much less paid than older teachers and so can be a much better value.
You are competing with surronding school districts for teacher talent so the lack of raises may hurt your competitiveness. But unless these districts credit seniority from your jurisdiction this should not be a concern. The real concern is that if the wages get much less than other districts you will be every candidates last choice and the quality of new teachers will decline in coming years.

[Scumpup]

It sounds like your district might be a candidate for merger with another, neighboring district. This will cause some overlapping seniority issues, but nothing insurmountable. One set of upper level administation can do the job formerly done by two.

[Crab Rangoon]

Originally Posted by Scumpup

It sounds like your district might be a candidate for merger with another, neighboring district. This will cause some overlapping seniority issues, but nothing insurmountable. One set of upper level administation can do the job formerly done by two.

Yeah - the funny part is that we just went through a forced consolidation 3 years ago. We used to be in a three-town district (about 500 kids) - now we're in the "big" 8-town district. And it has saved money - no doubt - the main reason we have not had to have cuts in the past two years is from the savings from consolidation. The down side is that we are with completely incompatible towns - demographically and geographically (there are actually towns in between the towns in our district.). Consolidation was a great idea that was executed poorly in our case.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by even sven

Low wages are less of a problem, but having people resent every penny of those pages is.

Amen. You go into these professions expecting modest but sufficient wages. You don't go into it expecting to justify and fight for modest but sufficient wages.

If I were a conservative I would focus a lot more on undercutting seniority and tenure and replacing it with more performance pay.

[Crab Rangoon]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

Amen. You go into these professions expecting modest but sufficient wages. You don't go into it expecting to justify and fight for modest but sufficient wages.

If I were a conservative I would focus a lot more on undercutting seniority and tenure and replacing it with more performance pay.

How do you do that with unions firmly in place? Seniority is the holy grail. The new teachers (or state workers) always lose.

[BlinkingDuck]

Maybe I came off wrong in the previous post. I constantly look at new opportunities...and was recently invited for interviews at a place that will pay me a good 40% more (though that is a promotion in terms of responsibilities). So, teachers are not alone here...if a teacher teachers for 10 years at a school and only gets 2 steps...he has to move to a new school to get full credit for his experience. Same thing I guess.

The low salary and no increase in salary for 5 years drove me from teaching...but I still remember the pain of finding out new hires with less experience were paid more than me because they received a step for every year of experience they had where I received none. That's what provoked my reply....your 'steps'