Numbers don’t add up
Wednesday, Apr 17, 2019 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Jacksonville Journal-Courier…
West-central Illinois school officials are making plans in case one of two state bills passes to mandate a $40,000 minimum starting salary for teachers.
Two nearly identical bills have been passed — one in the House and one in the Senate — that would direct districts to increase their minimum teacher salary to $40,000 by the 2023-24 school year. […]
Increasing the North Greene school district’s minimum salary to $40,000 is a huge pay increase for the district, Superintendent Mark Scott said.
The starting salary for North Greene teachers now is $29,850, Scott said, adding that he expects any increase in the starting salary to be met by a demand for an equal increase from teachers higher on the pay scale.
“It’ll cost at least $3.5 million just to raise our teachers up $10,150,” Scott said.
$3.5 million?
* From North Greene school district’s website…
The district serves approximately 865 students. North Greene Elementary houses approximately 480 Pre-K-6 students while North Greene Junior-Senior High School houses approximately 130 students in grades 7-8 and 245 students in grades 9-12. The district is a member of the Four Rivers Special Education cooperative, with special education services provided within the district as well as facilities located outside the district. The district employs about 70 licensed educators, 61 support staff members and two building administrators as well as the district superintendent and a supervising principal. [Emphasis added.]
So, they have 70 educators. I seriously doubt that all of those 70 are making the starting salary of $29,850, but whatever. Seventy times $10,150 equals $710,500. And, again, that’s only if all 70 teachers are making the starting salary, which seems highly unlikely. And that undoubtedly inflated number is still a far cry from the alleged $3.5 million cost, which would, in reality, give every one of those 70 teachers a $50,000 annual pay increase.
…Adding… Check out the school district’s salaries by clicking here.
* Related…
* Teacher shortage ‘is real, large, and growing’
- Sir Reel - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 10:38 am:
Yes, but over a hundred years it might total $3.5 million.
Maybe this will encourage some consolidation. We can only hope.
- Michelle Flaherty - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 10:38 am:
sounds more like Michael Scott leadership
- Annonin' - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 10:39 am:
School district are still required to print all employees salaries every year so this cold be checked pronto.
- Da Big Bad Wolf - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 10:41 am:
Good work Rich. There is so much nonsense out there that can be dispelled with a pencil and the back of an envelope.
- PatchworkOrange - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 10:44 am:
My guess is that they used the percentage increase the lower teachers would receive, then assumed all teachers want the percentage. My other guess is that this was then extrapolated out the number of years it takes to get to the 40,000,so then next four years. This then would come to the 3.5 million extra over the four year period they would not otherwise spend.
- Lynn S. - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 10:45 am:
Is he including health insurance, pension contributions, etc. in his statement?
And how much of an increase will the principal(s) and superintendent want after all the teachers get their new salaries?
- Juvenal - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 10:48 am:
Lynn S nailed it.
He’s planning on using teacher raises to justify principal raises, and principal raises to justify a raise for himself I expect.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 10:48 am:
Sounds like North Greene and the Jacksonville Journal-Courier are in desperate need of elementary math teachers.
Seriously — the reporter didn’t find the claim absurd from the start? Thirty seconds on the google shows the North Greene annual education budget is $8 million. Nearly a 50% increase just from raising starting salaries?
- Generic Drone - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 10:48 am:
But Rich, those administrators will want massive raises too. Superintendent salaries are way too high now.
- DuPage Bard - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 10:50 am:
Big numbers big numbers, that’ll get everyone against a bill.
This is the old Rauner trick just throw out huge numbers that sound so hard to swallow, the general public won’t research anyway.
- Altgelds Ghost - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 10:50 am:
I’d love to know how much the superintendent is making
- SAP - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 10:50 am:
Sounds like the North Green School District needs to hire somebody to teach 5th grade math to Superintendent Scott.
- City Zen - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 10:50 am:
It takes a teacher around 15 years to reach the $40,000 minimum salary in North Greene CUSD 3, assuming they stay in the first lane.
The awkward conversations will begin in 2023 when a teacher with 20 years experience and a Masters Degree is making marginally more than the newly hired teacher.
http://www.northgreene.com/Unit/Agreement-Negotiations-NGEA-2016-2017.pdf
- Almost the weekend - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 10:57 am:
Good time to see the salary of this superintendent who oversees 865 students and how is school district can consolidates administrative functions with other local school districts.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 10:58 am:
They could find some of the money by firing Mark Scott and using that savings to cover the cost. Mark Scott isn’t in the classroom teaching. The business of a school is to teach. It should pay teachers.
- Sue - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 10:59 am:
Are union dues a flat fee or a percentage of salary. Assuming the latter we know what is driving this effort
- Kayak - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 11:02 am:
I doubt Mark Scott’s would be so concerned if the bill was calling for a 25% increase in Superintendents pay.
- Demoralized - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 11:03 am:
==Assuming the latter we know what is driving this effort==
It’s anti-union all the time isn’t with you? Were you part of the Rauner Administration?
I don’t think $40,000 is a luxury salary to be a teacher. I don’t care who is driving it, the fact that the issue is being pushed is a good thing.
- Fixer - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 11:04 am:
Seriously Sue? You’re good with teachers in that district averaging around half of the state median income starting out I guess. Take off the blinders for a second with the union hatred and see that we are critically underpaying our educators.
- Lester Holt’s Mustache - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 11:07 am:
*sigh* you’re right Sue, this has nothing to do with retaining teachers, or ensuring there are enough teachers to keep class sizes manageable or paying teachers a decent enough salary to make sure that our kids aren’t being taught by community college dropouts. Nope, it’s all a nefarious plot to somehow benefit unions. You caught us.
Folks, how will we ever be able to get our dastardly plans past whip-smart conservatives like Sue?
- Rebel13 - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 11:10 am:
2017
Principal - $60,000
Admin - $90,298
While numbers in story are not totally adding up, a 33% increase in the starting salary is going to have an upward affect on the salaries of the more tenured teachers.
Why isn’t the union pushing for better starting wages?
http://www.northgreene.com/Unit/SalaryAndBenefitsData2017.pdf
- Pot calling kettle - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 11:11 am:
Sue: Sorry to burst your conspiracy bubble, but union dues are a flat fee.
- statehoss - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 11:13 am:
The average administrator salary in North Greene is 30% below the state average; they have more students per administrator than the state average, and fewer students per teacher than the state average. All based on the Illinois Report Card site provided by the ISBE. And all suggesting the cynicism about Scott among commenters is wildly misplaced.
- NeverPoliticallyCorrect - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 11:14 am:
The Supt. is making salary a bit over 90K. That’s not some huge amount. Their other numbers don’t add up however.
- d. p. gumby - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 11:16 am:
Gee, how many superintendents and administrators does it take to reach that goal???
- Sue - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 11:18 am:
Pot - if that’s the case where are the unions on progressive taxation when they don’t practice it with their own 😝- as for the pay scales - a lot of those downstate districts are pretty rural and / or farms. Where do you expect them to find the additional revenue to pay for another State mandate?
- Pot calling kettle - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 11:19 am:
Patchwork Orange hits the nail on the head. The Supt’s math is not off, he is just providing the answer without context.
Context: Raising the minimum salary will result in adjusting all teacher salaries by a similar amount, it might be a percentage, but flat dollar would be a minimum, so all of the teachers end up with at least a $10,000 increase in five years.
If the teachers get a big raise, I imagine their supervisors would expect something similar, as will their classroom aides.
Add up five years of those increases, and I’m guessing the dollars would be close to $3.5 million. (An average of $700,000/yr; less in the early years, more in later years.)
- Teach - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 11:20 am:
=Maybe this will encourage some consolidation. We can only hope.=
This could speed up the process. It has had support from both aisles in past. Many rural districts would struggle to finance the pay increases.
This argument simultaneously with administrator costs seems like an opening for school consolidations.
- Abbey - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 11:21 am:
If a union teacher gets a $10,000 raise, then you better believe the union will want all the other teachers to get a similar raise. The expense Scott anticipates is probably for across-the-board raises calculated according to percentage. His special ed teacher is currently earning $28,286 this year. That teacher will get a huge bump while the reading teacher making $38,603 this year based on experience, education and other steps would be getting a raise of just under $2,000.
Not gonna happen. The reading teacher is going to want a similar bump, probably a percentage increase over the new starting salary. That’s where it’s going to cost millions.
After all, these teachers earned it, it took them time to reach $40k, now a first year teacher automatically gets a $10,000+ raise?
And Scott made $108,000 last year.
- City Zen - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 11:22 am:
==Are union dues a flat fee or a percentage of salary==
Flat. #FairDuesNow
- muon - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 11:23 am:
CityZen, I think the conversations will occur well before 2023, at least as soon as the next collective bargaining agreement after the law is passed. The more senior and experienced teachers will demand and should expect raises to keep themselves well ahead of the starting salaries.
I think this is what PatchworkOrange was getting at in the type of assumptions that the superintendent was making. Percentage raises would start phasing in with the next CBA for all covered positions so that the new teachers don’t pass those with seniority. It is reasonable to expect that by 2023 everyone covered has received a proportionate raise. The cost a district will cite is not for one year but over the terms of the CBAs that ramp to the new level. Summed over all teachers and all those years it isn’t impossible to get to $3.5 million.
What the reporter didn’t ask, or didn’t include in the story, is “Over how many years is that $3.5 million increase?” That might make the quoted figure seem more reasonable in context.
- JS Mill - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 11:24 am:
=He’s planning on using teacher raises to justify principal raises, and principal raises to justify a raise for himself I expect.=
I guess in the private sector nobody asks for raises?
A quick count with my fingers and toes and I get 21 of 70 teachers making more than $40k and many of them just above that number.
Some of those below $40 are probably part-timers.
So about 70% will receive a raise if the bill becomes law. Some of those raises will be north of $10.
If something like that occurred in the private sector those not getting a raise wold want one as well. Getting it is a different issue.
$90 k for a superintendent isn’t much given the market. But the salary difference between top and bottom is 3x or so. Compare that to the private sector in companies where similar educational and experience requirements are required and the gap is much larger.
- Pot calling kettle - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 11:25 am:
==Where do you expect them to find the additional revenue to pay for another State mandate? ==
No clue. I serve on a school board and have been wondering this for several years. We have a starting salary in thee low 30’s and we have trouble keeping teachers. We would pay more if the state sent us something closer to their promised share. (Right now, we get about 20% of our revenue from the state.)
The mandated raises will also exceed the 3% pension threshold, so districts are also looking at having to pay a pension penalty unless the cap is raised or an exemption is included.
- Just Me 2 - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 11:29 am:
Don’t forget increased pension contributions and vacation/sick buy-outs. (Still not $3.5m though.)
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 11:30 am:
===My guess is that they used the percentage increase the lower teachers would receive, then assumed all teachers want the percentage===
Um…
===$3.5 million cost, which would, in reality, give every one of those 70 teachers a $50,000 annual pay increase.===
- Da Big Bad Wolf - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 11:32 am:
==Pot - if that’s the case where are the unions on progressive taxation when they don’t practice it with their own. ==
Union dues aren’t a tax. They don’t pay for roads and fire departments. They cover the cost of services provided, negotiating a contract for example. I hope this helps.
- Honeybear - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 11:33 am:
Sue I’m beginning to think you don’t work for a living. Or maybe a “consultant” (much the same)
You have absolutely no concept what life costs and how most of us “make it” financially. Your lack of empathy is startling. Rauner lacked empathy and was zealous anti-labor as well.
What is it with the monied and privileged these days? Seriously what were you trying to achieve with your comment?
- Sue - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 11:37 am:
So the IEA and IFT charge the same dues for a teacher in Glencoe or New Trier making a 100 plus as they charge a teacher down state making under 35? And these are the same folks complaining about our flat tax. Give me a break
- City Zen - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 11:39 am:
North Greene’s salary schedule is projected to hit the $40,000 minimum around 2032, 9 years after the minimum salary takes effect. It would take a teacher 5 years otherwise to hit the $40,000 minimum in the old salary schedule, which would amount to an extra $20,000 the district would not had spent on that teacher otherwise. Keep in mind that $20K is probably worst case scenario. Every teacher hired after that would have a “premium” less than that.
I’m not finding $3.5 million either.
- Jane the Actuary - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 11:39 am:
This is clearly a matter of raising each teacher’ss salary by this fixed amount, then doing the math over a 5 year period, as appears to be the norm in government, and, I’m guessing, is a matter of “over the next contract bargaining period.” It is clear that you cannot boost starting teachers’ salary without giving everyone else the same boost. So, sorry, there’s no deceit here.
- Pot calling kettle - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 11:41 am:
===$3.5 million cost, which would, in reality, give every one of those 70 teachers a $50,000 annual pay increase.===
Or, $10,000/yr times five years.
==Add up five years of those increases, and I’m guessing the dollars would be close to $3.5 million. (An average of $700,000/yr; less in the early years, more in later years.) ==
As I indicated above, the Supt. does not provide context, and the reporter did not ask. My interpretation is that the $3.5 million is a 5-year total.
- Huh? - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 11:41 am:
In 2018, the superintendent made $108k. The principal made $61k.
Click of the link to the schools website, on the left side is a link to the 2018 salary and benefits of all the employees. If my count is correct, 25 of the 72 employees listed made over $40k.
- City Zen - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 11:48 am:
==It takes a teacher around 15 years to reach the $40,000 minimum salary in North Greene CUSD 3, assuming they stay in the first lane.==
Correcting my earlier post: Under the current salary schedule, it would take a teacher nine years to hit the $40,000 minimum, not 15. I mistakenly took the 2018-19 salary schedule and counted the number of years in the first lane to hit $40,000, not taking into account the increases built in to the steps and lanes.
- Michelle Flaherty - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 11:58 am:
==Where do you expect them to find the additional revenue to pay for another State mandate? ==
===No clue. I serve on a school board and have been wondering this for several years. ===
Gee, I don’t know. Maybe the hundreds of millions of new state tax dollars that are going to public school districts under the new funding formula.
- JS Mill - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 12:04 pm:
=Gee, I don’t know. Maybe the hundreds of millions of new state tax dollars that are going to public school districts under the new funding formula.=
They probably won’t get enough to offset such an increase unless more money is put into the formula.
=I’m not finding $3.5 million either.=
Yeah, his math is bad.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 12:05 pm:
===Yeah, his math is bad===
I can’t see how he did any actual math.
- Fixer - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 12:09 pm:
Magic 8 ball math at its finest.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 12:22 pm:
Sue, you’re a laugh riot.
First, you’re outraged because you think a minimum salary is a scheme to collect more in graduated union dues.
Then, you’re outraged when you learn that union dues are flat.
Do you have a third voice in your head for a tie-breaker as which would be more outrageous?
- Smalls - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 12:22 pm:
The interesting part of this to me is the state is shooting themselves in the foot. For a teacher currently making $30,000 per year, going to $40,000 is a 33% increase. There will be a corresponding 33% increase in the TRS pension liabilities. That being said, it still makes sense to me. But those pension liabilities will be going up.
- Union thug - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 12:28 pm:
For the record. Unions dues are set by the local not council. Part does go to council but the local bears most expenses in representing members. Sonteachers if different school districts would pay based on the local they are in and that is determined by expenses and voted on by members.
- Jibba - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 12:32 pm:
==So the IEA and IFT charge the same dues for a teacher in Glencoe or New Trier making a 100 plus as they charge a teacher down state making under 35? And these are the same folks complaining about our flat tax. Give me a break===
So Sue, you’re saying you will vote for the fair tax CA when it comes around? I know you are a stickler for consistency.
- LTSW - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 12:37 pm:
An RC-14 Office Assistant starts at $32,400. How do recruit new teachers to that district ?
- Person 8 - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 12:40 pm:
==smalls==
Or is this part of the solution. Tier 2 help pay down debt.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 12:45 pm:
Union thug - depends on the local and what union. The processes are different everywhere. Sue’s faux-outrage is an algorithm pre-designed to spew whatever frothing anti-union rant is convenient at the moment.
- Common Sense - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 12:52 pm:
It seems as though we should check the time period his 3.5 million was forecasted over before we critique him so harshly.
Furthermore, while the minimum salary would be required to increase, we would be naive to think that a 20 year teacher wouldn’t also demand a corresponding increase of an equal amount. If a new teacher is worth 10k more, I would certainly expected that experience teachers would believe they are worth at least that much more if not greater. So to be fair to him, we should be looking at this impact based on a district wide teacher level rather than just on the number of those below the threshold.
- benniefly2 - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 1:20 pm:
Based on the 2017 salaries posted in the above link, it looks like there would be 45 full time teachers in line for a bump up to $40k. The total money involved to do that would be $260,632.52 per year before benefits. The average raise would be $5791.83 before benefits. If you gave the other 20 or so full time teachers the same average bump that the other folks got (which they don’t have to currently under the proposed law), the total goes up to $376469.12 per year before benefits.
Based on that, I still have no idea where the $3.5 million comes from unless they are talking about the cost over 10 years or something.
- JS Mill - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 1:21 pm:
=It seems as though we should check the time period his 3.5 million was forecasted over before we critique him so harshly.=
If all 72 teachers and admins received a $10k increase that is $720k. Add in another 10% (rounding up) for pensions and you are still at $792K call it $800k. All other add ons won’t even get to $50 k.
That isn’t $3.5 million or even a close facsimile. He didn’t do any math and he threw $3.5 million out there. Not smart.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 1:28 pm:
–That isn’t $3.5 million or even a close facsimile. He didn’t do any math and he threw $3.5 million out there. Not smart.–
“And I would have gotten away with it, too, if not for that meddling Miller kid.”
The Jacksonville paper sure took it hook, line and sinker.
- RuralJewel - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 1:33 pm:
Please somebody write in to the Journal Courier. Prod someone at that journalistic establishment to do a bit of analysis and publish it. This paper continues to go down hill to the deteriment of West Central IL readers.
- anon2 - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 1:54 pm:
The tier II reform in 2010 did not help. It requires teachers hired since 2011 to work until 67 to qualify for a full pension, up 12 years from the tier I rule. The tier II retirees will get a lower AI than tier I, but they have to pay the same contribution rate. In short, the reform made teaching in Illinois less attractive than it used to be. Those responsible for tier II deserve some responsibility for the resulting problem.
- Ebenezer - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 2:22 pm:
70 licensed educators for 865 students. 1 teacher for every 12 students. Is that typical?
- City Zen - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 2:23 pm:
==The tier II reform in 2010 did not help.==
Were about two decades away before this really matters. Plenty of time for the legislature to enhance benefits, such as lowering the employee contributions or full vesting age.
Remember, every pension projection or re-amortization plan assumes Tier 2 benefits will remains as-is. In other words, look out below…
- ajjacksson - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 2:36 pm:
This is to all of you that think these superintendents are overpaid …..If it’s such a great gig, why don’t you go back to school and get the job?
- muon - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 2:56 pm:
Here’s the analysis that should have been done by the paper. The North Greene FY19 expenditures for educational instruction and support, including retirement, is about $7.5 million. I assume that it increases at 2.5% a year for the next five years, a number in between the CPI and ECI values for 2018. Wit that increase, that budget line would go up about $200,000 a year, up to $8.4 million in FY24. I’ll call this the baseline expenditure.
The bill referenced in the article proposes minimum teacher salaries of $32,076 in FY21, $34,576 in FY22, $37,076 in FY23, and $40,000 in FY24. In terms of a percentage increase over the North Greene minimum that is 5.4% in FY21, 7.8% in FY22, 7.2% in FY23, and 7.9% in FY24. If those percentage increases are applied to the entire instructional budget so that all teachers get the same proportional raise then the budgets in FY21-FY24 would exceed the baseline expenditure by about $178,000 in FY21, $607,000 in FY22, $1,031,000 in FY23, and $1,555,000 in FY24.
The total excess expenditures from those four years is $3,371,000. That’s pretty close to the superintendent’s claim of $3.5 million, without knowing what other costs he factored in. His math doesn’t necessarily look bad if those are the assumptions.
- BCOSEC - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 2:56 pm:
Rich. Maybe you could call the North Greene super and ask him how he came up with $3.5 million because the article isn’t very specific on time frame for that school district compared to other comparable districts, which are much lower.
Rural superintendents typically don’t want to be cheap, but have to be given small tax bases and low State funding levels.
A friend of mine who is a principal at a rural school says they have very few applications for teaching positions across the board due to low pay and Tier 2.
I suspect the supers want to pay more, but they have to figure out how.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 3:15 pm:
Ebenezer - You have to consider special education teachers who sometimes are in the same room as another teacher, or pull a group of kids out of class to work on certain skill sets (speech commonly), or teach smaller classes. So it isn’t a simple matter of dividing 865 by 70.
- Shemp - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 3:17 pm:
Even if they’re not all at $29k a year, if you bump, the entry to $40k, no contract will let you pay a 2nd year teacher $40k, you’ll have to preserve the pay bump, so the 2nd year employee that was maybe making $31,000 will now be making $42,000. The 3rd year teacher that was maybe at $33,000 will now be at $44,000. Maybe even more if the bumps are percentage based. It doesn’t add up to $3.5m, but it’s going to be at least $10,000 to every teacher unless the union capitulates and let’s the district pay a ten year teacher a pittance more than an entry level. If like so many other districts, the school pays the teachers’ TRS contributions, that amount just went up too due to the higher liability just created. I haven’t gotten to $3.5m, but no less, it’s not going to be a negligible amount to the district either.
- Still Waiting - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 3:27 pm:
I don’t know how he came up with his number, but I wonder how much of that total is attributed to penalties for going over a 3% increase? Not sure where it’s at, but at one point the penalty for going over the cap was something like a $13 penalty for ever $1 over. That adds up fast.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 3:29 pm:
=== I haven’t gotten to $3.5m===
And you won’t.
- Boris Goodenough - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 3:33 pm:
In my world, this is a common issue called compression. Essentially, the entire scale gets bumped up, and yes all of the indirect costs for teachers such as TRS contributions will increase accordingly.
The other effect of compression as noted, maybe not so much in the education arena, is where the increased salaries of the workers cause them to be making more than the supervisors/managers. Given the problems of school funding, why this would be approved without in-depth financial studies is beyond me- but not surprising.
- muon - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 3:48 pm:
===I haven’t gotten to $3.5m===
But I showed with modest assumptions I could get to $3.371m. The $129,000 difference is easily in the details of the assumptions.
- City Zen - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 4:12 pm:
==a principal at a rural school says they have very few applications for teaching positions across the board due to low pay and Tier 2.==
Do millennials aspire to the rural lifestyle these days? How many doctors, lawyers, programmers, etc are moving downstate for employment? How much do we have to pay the UofC Education grad to relocate to Taylorville?
If we need to pay North Greene teachers $100K to attract talent, that sounds like a North Greene problem.
- Sue - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 4:36 pm:
Better to adopt what the feds did- encourage people to take these jobs by forgiving student loans - assuming they stick around at least 5 years
- BCOSEC - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 4:51 pm:
city zen.
Actually there are many young people from rural areas who want togo back home if they can find a good job. Factories are paying $16 an hour plus benefits (or more) to high school grads that can make it through the 90 day probationary period.
So it is difficult to get college grads to accept lower pay than that.
Also, the Illinois economy downstate isn’t always as bad as it is advertised. There are several communities they have a lot of high paying jobs, especially compared to the cost of living.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 7:33 pm:
Rural life in America has been declining for over a century. There is no reason to subsidize places that have no future.
- the old man - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 8:14 pm:
Wake up small school districts, this $40,000 salary bill is really a forced consolidation bill. Kiddos get ready for the long bus rides and begin plans now to kill those school mascots and come up with acronims for merged school names.
- theCardinal - Wednesday, Apr 17, 19 @ 10:42 pm:
Lots of factors to consider including current contract requirements. Do they have step increases ? if so are they based on the starting salary of a first year with a BA degree? and other district obligations Its not just salaries that are impacted by more State unfunded mandates. Please fund education properly at all levels and maybe keep the kids home after college? Magic might happen like the economy here may stabilize. It will be a long slog back though. To so much damage has been done the past 15 years.