Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Question of the day

Posted in:

Illinois

* Remember, it’s just a bill for now…

The Illinois Education Association initiated a bill to repeal the 3 percent salary limit law that shifts the state’s cost of paying for an educator’s pensionable earnings to local school districts and institutions of higher education and local property tax payers.

The bill, which is Senate Bill 60, was introduced by Sen. Jennifer Bertino-Tarrant (D-Plainfield), and House Bill 350 was introduced by Rep. Kathleen Willis (D-Addison) in the House, is meant to help ease the teacher shortage Illinois is currently facing.

“The 3 percent limitation is a disincentive for school districts to offer any increase in compensation above 3 percent regardless of whether the educator goes the extra mile to be the best in their field and provide the best education for students,” said Kathi Griffin, IEA president.

“Districts and higher education institutions are applying this to all active TRS and SURS members no matter how close they are to retirement. This is impacting the ability of our public schools and higher education institutions to attract and retain the best and brightest, while also having to compete against private sector and out-of-state entities that can offer more attractive financial packages. We are driving our own kids out of the state.”

Since the measure initially passed last summer as part of the Budget Implementation Bill, it has had a chilling effect on educator professional development, further inhibiting the ability of educational institutions to attract and retain educators into a profession that is in the midst of a sustainability crisis and has hampered contract negotiations across the state.

“This measure has had unintended consequences and we understand that. Repealing the 3 percent gets us back to where we were before and allows our school districts and institutions of higher education to better compete for talent in what is already a scarce marketplace because of the teacher shortage and allows us to do better for our students in Illinois,” Willis said.

Districts, not wanting to assume the pension costs for any salary increase above 3 percent, are refusing to reward teachers who earn master’s degrees, obtain additional academic credentials, perform extracurricular duties such as directing plays or coaching teams, become Nationally Board Certified Teachers, and other enhancements that directly benefit students.

“Restoring the threshold to where it was prior to last summer will give districts more leeway in what they can offer educators who go above and beyond for our students. We need to do all we can to attract the best and brightest to teaching, not push them away,” Bertino-Tarrant said.

IEA has been asking members to sign a petition in support of this repeal. To date, nearly 18,000 have done so.

* The Question: Your thoughts on this legislation?

posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 2:47 pm

Comments

In my opinion, this bill will widen the divide between wealthier school districts and those districts that struggle to attract good teachers.

And I can’t imagine what it will do to my property taxes! I am paying more in taxes than I do in mortgage!

Comment by Colin O'Scopy Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 2:51 pm
It’s just a bill…

Comment by Anon Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 2:56 pm
Is there any real proof that we can’t find teachers? I know people in CPS and they get countless reaumes from qualified people looking to work there.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 2:56 pm
My significant other is an educator. I think the 3% limit is already affecting contract negotiations and, in my loved-one’s case, resulted in an “intent to strike.” What’s the end game? If we want education to be an uncertain proposition, then the 3% cap is fine. If the end game is stability, lose the cap.

Comment by Dome Gnome Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 2:57 pm
And all along, I thought “working with the children” was it’s own reward? /s/

Comment by Colin O'Scopy Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 2:57 pm
Does the bill also shift pension costs to local districts? If that’s the case, then there will be far fewer concerns about the cost.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 2:57 pm
I do notice they don’t reference how it prevents districts from compensating a teacher for high test scores or high student achievement.

Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 2:59 pm
=Does the bill also shift pension costs to local districts? If that’s the case, then there will be far fewer concerns about the cost.=

In other words, Katy, bar the door.

Comment by Colin O'Scopy Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 2:59 pm
I’d have to study the roll call on the original bill that became this law to better handicap the odds of the repeal effort, but generally speaking, repeal is usually a tough road. It happens, and we have a lot of new members, but there must have been some strong arguments in favor of passing this law or it wouldn’t have passed. Pretty hard to sneak one past the GA and the Governor.

Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 3:00 pm
== Does the bill also shift pension costs to local districts? ==

Apparently not. The bill they want to repeal made the district responsible for pension contributions on anything over a 3% increase. As I see it, this would put the State back on the hook for contributing pension costs for large increases.

The current situation doesn’t stop school districts from giving more than 3%; it just has the added pension cost associated with it. Nothing wrong with that; makes the local district think twice about labor costs.

Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 3:05 pm
The core problem here is that individual school districts should be responsible for the pension costs of members they employ, but the state doesn’t provide sufficient funds for school districts to do that while maintaining an adequate education for students. We need to find a way to transition to a system where school districts cover pension normal costs for their employees. When we do, the state should allocate funds that offset those costs to make it easier for them to do so.

Comment by PoliChi Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 3:11 pm
In our area, it has basically taken collective bargaining away from the locals. Our contract has places that have a greater than 3% jump. Our district wants to eliminate that. So we should just set a minimum and then everyone gets 3% increase every year? And it shouldn’t matter if they take on more responsibility? or an advanced degree?

Comment by Exit 59 Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 3:11 pm
From the reading over the years, here’s what it seems to me that most people want.

–More money for education.

–Lower property taxes.

–The state cut spending and reduce its future pension liability.

It seems to me that it may be possible to have two of those things at the same time, but not all three of them.

Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 3:12 pm
The old cap was 6%. That seemed to work out well. It gave school districts (and community college districts, as they are also now limited to 3%)some flexibility with salary increases.

Comment by G'Kar Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 3:13 pm
Anonymous- Is there any real proof that we can’t find teachers? I know people in CPS and they get countless reaumes from qualified people looking to work there.-

I love it when anecdotes get in the way of facts. Use the Google Machine, it is your friend. https://www.isbe.net/Documents/Teach-Illinois-Memo.pdf

To the question, the report from ISBE shows a supply shortage in teaching and the pipeline is drying up too. Don’t think that capping raises would be beneficial to students and communities looking to attract young talent. Should there be guidance on pension spiking? Sure, but this bill, which was buried in the budget, strips collective bargaining rights away from locals and takes an axe to an area of policy that needs a scalpel.

Comment by Town Skeptic Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 3:19 pm
Here’s what it seems to me most people want:

Teachers with 15 years of excellent performance, advanced degrees, unlimited enthusiasm and energy to personally attend to your own child and all at the cost of 20,000 per year. That, it seems would make most people happy. And after your child has gone to the next grade, the salary should drop to 5,000/year. Maybe less. WIth no pension.

Sure seems to me that this is what I hear people want.

And if that’s the angst felt by those in the profession, why would any of the best and brightest go anywhere near a classroom?

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 3:20 pm
Nothing to see here.

Move along.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 3:20 pm
47th - There isn’t a roll call to review. The new limit was passed in the BIMP.

Comment by Pessimistic Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 3:33 pm
“Districts and higher education institutions are applying this to all active TRS and SURS members no matter how close they are to retirement.”

Wrong.

Our district’s newly negotiated contract has differentiated increases based on Steps. Those below a certain Step level get over 3.0%, those over get less than 3.0%.

It operates no differently than how most contracts treated teachers that were off the salary table (i.e. over Step 20 or 25). Off the Table teachers received either a flat stipend or an increase that was substantially less than those that were on the Table.

Comment by Occam Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 3:33 pm
===The new limit was passed in the BIMP.===

Thanks for the info.

Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 3:35 pm
Unwinds one of the only pension reform measures to be put in place in the last couple years.

Comment by Mr. Chairman Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 3:40 pm
doesn’t prevent districts from giving out raises as much as they want during someone’s lengthy career, just seeks to prevent bump gouging the taxpayers when retire to calculate the final average salary for the highest 4 years

Comment by Pension Bump Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 3:41 pm
I work full-time at a college and asked permission to teach a course part-time at another college, a fairly standard thing. I was told no due to this law even though I am 10 years away from retirement.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 3:44 pm
Replace the 3% with the CPI used for property tax caps?

Comment by Anyone Remember Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 3:44 pm
Could the various Anonymi (or Anonymouses - whatever the plural is) do the rest of us the courtesy of picking a name? It’s getting to figure out which Anonymous said what.

Comment by Name Withheld Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 3:50 pm
“The old cap was 6%. That seemed to work out well. It gave school districts (and community college districts, as they are also now limited to 3%)some flexibility with salary increases.”

It seemed to me the 6% was given out the final four years before retirement as a pension spike. I don’t think anyone else gets an automatic raise for taking a college class or getting a degree. Merit raises should be given for excellence in the classroom.

Comment by Monarch Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 3:59 pm
Anonymous (#1) @ 3:20 — EXACTLY! Or the year after, that teacher is superfluous to requirements, especially if they are in art, music, library,etc. I am sure there is a shortage of young, inexperienced, cheaper teachers who see what happens when you get to the “optimal” experience.

Comment by Me, Me, Me Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 3:59 pm
I think the intent of the original bill may have been okay, but it was poorly written if so.

My wife was taking classes last summer (as this bill passed), which qualified her for an increase on the pay scale. Their district’s contract was also up last summer, and after this bill passed they agreed to a one-year contract that would not give them credit for increased levels of education. It was a 1 year contract with the hope that the law would be revised or repealed. So we’ve paid for the classes, she’s taken the classes, but her pay did not increase.

I typically don’t like the idea of giving teachers a large raise their last 4 years of employment, in order to game the system to get a higher pension. My wife doesn’t agree with that either. Obviously if that practice is in place when she retires we will gladly take it, but I understand that it is unfair to the taxpayers, and really to younger teachers who are paying into the system as well.

But I don’t think the law was intended to disincentivize people from getting a Master’s degree. If that was the intent, it shouldn’t have been, but it is the outcome.

Comment by AndyIllini Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 4:04 pm
The law makes a school district pay for the extra pension cost for any amount of a salary increase over the 3%. It does not prohibit increases over 3% but it is a disincentive and it should be. If a school board and teachers negotiate an increase over the 3% it should be local responsibility rather than the state’s. This keeps school districts accountable for pensions. I’m on a small school district board. If we go over it is our responsibility. I do not support moving it back to 6%.

Comment by Hoping for Rational Thought Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 4:06 pm
This is a bad bill.

The current law doesn’t cap late-career pension bumps or salary increases. Districts are free to do so. What current law does is say that if you increase salaries late in the career above 3% then the school district is responsible for the overage. Before this law districts were allowed to push these extra liabilities over to the state via extra TRS payments. The State does not need to return to those times.

And if Districts are applying this to all active members no matter how close they are to retirement then the union need to negotiate better or strike. They shouldn’t run to Springfield to repeal a good law.

Comment by Anon Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 4:06 pm
Town Skeptic, so there are 2,000 unfilled positions out of 174,000? That’s 1.1%.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 4:07 pm
Anonymous - Those statistic ignore the number of unqualified and underqualified teachers. Right now districts are able to fill vacancies, but with less than qualified candidates……it’s a huge issue, especially in underperforming and rural districts. Not addressing this shortage puts those students & regions at an even great disadvantage.

Comment by Anon Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 4:26 pm
Anon, I imagine it’s tough to recruit in rural areas, so I’m not surprised.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 4:29 pm
The change does not affect what a district pays it merely says you want to pay more than a 3% increase per year then you pay for the difference. It’s fair and should be implemented to all the pension systems. And as far as the idea that the taxpayers should pay because of a master’s degree? No other profession receives this increase and somehow
Other employees get master’s and certifications. It an what happens in an open workforce.

Comment by Annoyance Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 4:32 pm
Without being snide- if the IEA is for this then all of us taxpayers who don’t have an educator in our immediate families should join in opposition. Does anyone seriously believe that this legislation won’t further impair our house values and drive up our real estate taxes while also impacting TRS funding requirements?

Comment by Sue Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 4:38 pm
Sue-Let’s oppose this because we don’t want to pay for quality educators. I thought having a good school that strengthen local property values was a good thing…….

Annoyance-You’re right, teachers should just stay in their lane with a bachelor’s degree and not try to become better in their profession.

Paying the difference to be competitive with attracting quality educators is what should be driving the repeal of this. Why should districts be in that situation where they have to use more local resources to pay Springfield’s pension bill? Local dollars should be for local classrooms!

Comment by Typical Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 4:52 pm
==It seemed to me the 6% was given out the final four years before retirement as a pension spike.==

Worse than that…it was given to a teacher who handed in his/her resignation…4 years in advance. Not sure handing out the largest raises to employees heading out the door is the best strategy for any organization. If there’s a teacher shortage, you shouldn’t be offering any retirement incentives anyway.

Districts are free to give whatever raises they want. They merely have to pay a bit more. This is about accountability and transparency, two concepts foreign to the teacher unions.

Comment by City Zen Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 4:53 pm
Correct me if I am wrong but I believe the current law was enacted while Quinn was Governor as part of his efforts to bring some sensibility to the pension funding crisis. The law was aimed at throwing up roadblocks to School Districts of granting larger increases and then shifting the pension funding associated with the raises onto the State. So if I am correct this was a Democratic effort to constrain the unfunded liabilities- why reverse it?

Comment by Sue Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 4:57 pm
===I believe the current law was enacted while Quinn was Governor===

Read the release. It was passed last year.

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 4:59 pm
Typical- yea your right let’s do more to make our home values go down. We live in the northern suburbs where it’s not uncommon for teachers to make well into six figure salaries for a job that is 9 months long. Our home values are still well below where they were in 2007 and go down a little bit every year. I don’t think we need to reverse legislation Quinn enacted to curb pension abuses. But your entitled to your opinion

Comment by Sue Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 5:01 pm
Rich - thanks for the correction. Nevertheless- it was enacted by a Democratic legislature.

Comment by Sue Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 5:03 pm
We are now looking at a 50% washout ratio by year 10 with early career teachers. Keeping a retirement structure that rewards career educators creates a stable profession. Teaching is becoming unstable because of the new 3% limit, Tier 2 (that requires retirement at 67), and all of the additional classroom requirements. It is tough to say it but people expect the best but don’t want to pay what is needed to get the best. I went into the classroom because it was a calling. It seems like many believe that I should just be thankful to have a job. I am thankful, but being compensated for giving my life to my profession is not too much to ask!

Comment by Career Educator Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 5:06 pm
Annoyance-You’re right, teachers should just stay in their lane with a bachelor’s degree and not try to become better in their profession.

Every human begin has a right to better themselves that does not mean the taxpayers should be required to pay for their education. No other professional industry receives this increase. Stay in the lane if the only reason is money, change lanes because you chose but know that like the rest of us the increase doesn’t come but knowledge and other opportunities may.

Comment by Annoyance Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 5:07 pm
Sue - The 6% limit was enacted under Blago then reduced to 3% under Rauner.

Also, please stop with the “teaching is a 9 month job” meme. You can argue your points without going there.

Comment by City Zen Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 5:08 pm
Illinois has 19,119 open jobs in computing (as of 1 Jan ‘19). This is 3.4 times the average demand rate for a given job in the state.
Av salary for computing job in IL: $90,919 (vs $52,410 av salary for all jobs in IL)
Multiply open jobs by av computing salary, you get $1.74B now flowing into state economy. (Data from Conference Board and Bureau of Labor Stats)

Now, contrast that with a total of only 187 high schools statewide offering any AP Computer Science course. This is barely over a quarter of all high schools statewide that offer any AP courses, and an even smaller percentage of total high schools in the state. (College Board data)

Think about this.. we’ve got a shortage of people to fill jobs in the one field that is the highest producer of all new wages in the country, and these jobs pay well. But a fraction of our kids are getting any meaningful training in computing.

Why is this relevant to the conversation about teacher pay and pension? Because if we don’t start looking deeper beyond the usual rhetoric - on both sides of the issue - and we don’t start incentivizing college students to go into educating students in industries that are in demand, our state economy will not grow.

Comment by It Doesnt Have to Be This Way Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 5:09 pm
Sue-you’re missing the argument. This legislation reduces property taxes but also helps districts recruit the best educators. Good schools strengthen property values. Why do people move to the suburbs? As to your 6 figure reference and to your 9 months out of the year. Well, I will let a teacher argue with you on that. I am sure there are easy points to be made that will deep six your talking points.

Comment by Typical Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 5:11 pm
I used to believe the 9 months out of the year argument. That is until I had kids………and understood the quality of a school dictated my house value.

Comment by Typical Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 5:14 pm
== Keeping a retirement structure that rewards career educators creates a stable profession.==

But is this the future of professions in general? Are college graduates these days keen to occupy the same job for 3 decades? Is “trapping” educators in a system where they’d prefer to leave but so far along in pension vesting that they just ride it out fair to students? Does an effective teacher really need to teach his/her entire career?

The current pension system is actually a detriment to attracting mid-career talent. Why shift to teaching if I’m going to get a fractional pension with a social security reduction on top of that? What if I only want to do it for 10 years?

Society needs to rethink how we deliver education. 1970’s thinking begets 1970’s results.

Comment by City Zen Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 5:18 pm
==and understood the quality of a school dictated my house value…==

…and the quality of the families in those homes dictate the quality of their schools.

Good schools are a product of their environments. A quality neighborhood attracts quality talent which enhances a quality school.

Comment by City Zen Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 5:24 pm
===Is “trapping” educators in a system where they’d prefer to leave but so far along in pension vesting===

SURS has a portable pension plan. Everyone should have that option. But to say that pensions are bad because they trap people is… odd.

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 5:29 pm
Anonymous @ 4:07. Did you read the whole report? Look at the number of students going into education at the college level? Trends speak volumes. How can kids learn without teachers? An uneducated populace will not be great for the economy.

Anon @ 4:06
Read the current law. It has nothing to do with the ability of how locals can bargain, but more to do with how it hamstrings collective bargaining. It is impossible for one to negotiate a raise over 3%. This includes an educator moving from the classroom to become a principal or dean or even a football coach from receiving a raise, inclusive of their teaching duties. If you want to see a strike, push educators enough, and Springfield will look like West Virginia, Arizona, Colorado, etc. Much like state employees, educators are sick of being the punching bag of people who want services but refuse to pay for them.

Comment by Town Skeptic Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 5:38 pm
The unions and local school boards should not be able to pass pension costs on to the state when the state is not at the bargaining table–good law keep it.

Comment by anon Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 5:42 pm
Currently 1% of teaching jobs in Illinois are unfilled. There is no crisis whatsover.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 5:51 pm
And as Illinois school age population continues to shrink,with no end in sight and, it’s less likely to become a problem.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 5:52 pm
The law was an attempt to reduce the costs passed onto the state by individual districts. I see no reason to repeal this.

The cap is what the state is responsible for, anything above that is the responsibility of the district. If the local school board wants to fund their educators above 3% they are perfectly free to do so.

It should be noted that plainfield school district(where JBT is representing) just gave a nice $6M handout for a private industrial development to be built.

Yet somehow they can’t afford to give their teachers more than a 3% raise?

JBT is incredibly lucky the republicans in plainfield are about as useless as a wet paper towel. If the local republican party even slightly got its act together, her seat could very easily flip to an R.

Comment by TheInvisibleMan Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 5:56 pm
Anonymous makes a very good point. Our HS district recently announced an anticipated drop in students by 15 percent over the next 4 years. We are graduating more seniors then the 8th graders to replace them. Due to the significant drop in the birth rate associated with the 08 recession we are going to be swimming in excess teachers. The IEA is claiming a drop in retest in incoming educators but for the next several years their concern should be with layoffs because they are coming. We are closing schools in the suburbs not building new ones

Comment by Sue Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 6:54 pm
Sue, and CPS has seen enrollment decline by over 30,000 in the last 3 years alone.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 7:12 pm
@Sue

Yes, a prominent high school district on the North Shore - where property values far exceed the structural value of the homes tenfold relative to nearby North Chicago, did indeed announce a drop of 15% in their projected student enrollment. To infer a single case as sufficient to justify a statewide trend is flawed logic. Check out the 4-year enrollment projections at neighboring Stevenson High School in Lincolnshire, and you’ll see data that reflects the number of homes continuing to be built in every possible parcel of land in that area. They are adding a whole new wing onto that school even at this very moment.

PS: Township High School District 113, which announced the 15% drop in enrollment, is a non-union district. Few people recognize such a thing as even feasible, but it’s true. Their faculty pay $0 to IEA/NEA. They are not a fair comparator to any other school district.

Comment by It Does Not Have to Be This Way Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 7:15 pm
Springfield has had some job postings go unfilled since last summer.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 10:01 pm
Some? How many? How many total teaching jobs are in Springfield?

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jan 17, 19 @ 8:57 am
How would this bill, if it were enacted, impact the state budget and the unfunded liability for TRS? So long as the State is picking up the increased pension costs, we ought to see the projected pricetag on this repeal.

Comment by anon2 Thursday, Jan 17, 19 @ 9:31 am
I have 3 college educated children, one is a teacher. She started off in her career making far less than her siblings and has continued to make less. To cap her salary increases to 3% is enough to make her want to leave the profession. She has a master’s degree and neither of my other 2 children do, yet she makes far less. I would have to say that I would discourage any of my grandchildren from entering the profession of teaching. People want good schools but they don’t want to pay for them.

Comment by Anon1 Friday, Jan 25, 19 @ 9:37 am