Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Yingling launches targeted cable ad buy for Lake County Assessor bill
Next Post: Motion to place SIU’s Dunn on leave fails
Posted in:
Posted by Barton Lorimor<
* Gov. Rauner was on WJBC-AM this morning, and asked specifically by host Scott McLaughlin if he plans to veto the $40,000/year minimum wage bill that passed both chambers…
We’re talkin’ with all the school leaders around the state. I am in strong favor of our teachers makin’ more money, and I support that very much. But havin’ a mandate where every school district has to do a minimum like that is very tough because there are a lot of school districts that don’t have the money and can’t afford it. We’ve gotta come up with some creative solutions. We’re workin’ on that right now. You know, the real answer is to get the mandates off from Springfield so teachers can teach and principals can lead without costly regulations and restrictions on what they do.
He went on to say money could be saved for teacher salary increases if local governments and school districts were allowed to contract services and consolidate.
The bill cleared the veto-proof majority in the Senate, and had 65 yays in the House. It has not been sent to the Governor as of yet, according to records.
A coalition of school district and leadership groups actually cited in a recent letter the current bargaining process as a reason the Governor should veto the bill…
Coupled with the recently enacted law requiring schools boards to contribute the normal pension costs for any salary increase above 3% (PA 100-0587), enactment of this proposal would require local school districts to increase pay above 3%, then require the local school district to pay the normal pension cost because of the increase!
Illinois has a collective bargaining law that empowers local school boards, together with their teachers and support staff, to set salaries in consideration of the revenues available to run their schools. School leaders and staff must take into consideration all aspects of its budget and make very difficult decisions to provide an effective education program that meets the needs of all students, while considering the will and ability of their local taxpayers to pay these mandated increases. often bargaining sessions include items other than salary, such as health insurance costs and pension contributions.
From a WUIS piece this morning….
Chris Roegge said the legislative fixes are a good solution for the short-term, but they don’t address long-term needs. Roegge serves as the director of the University of Illinois’s Council on Teacher Education, and he’s seen a decline in the number of students enrolling in teacher preparation programs. A report from the non-profit Learning Policy Institute cites a 35 percent decrease nation-wide in teacher education enrollments between 2009 and 2014. Roegge attributes that in part to the narrative around the field.
“There’s been this swirl of negative press going back for more than five years around teaching, the conditions of teaching, the status of the job, the difficulty of the job – all of these things,” he said. “I think we’re starting to reap what’s been sown by that.”
Roegge points to the report from the Learning Policy Institute that identifies what attracts people to the field and what improves retention once they’re there. He said the four key ingredients are: compensation, preparation, induction and mentoring, and teaching conditions.
In many cases, improving these four areas requires more resources – whether that’s more money for teacher salaries and classroom materials or grants and scholarships for college students interested in the field.
The measures that have passed both chambers in the state’s General Assembly to specifically address the teacher shortage have revolved largely around decreasing bureaucratic hurdles instead of sending more money to local districts.
Here is Roegge in May…
Illinois lawmakers are considering a proposed amendment to the state’s school code that would establish a minimum salary of $40,000 for full-time teachers. Is that salary threshold enough to attract more people to the profession despite the many other challenges teaches face, such as underresourced schools and standardized testing mandates?
I think the salary increase helps, in terms of perception as well as practice, especially given that the current minimum is $9,000.
I read a quote recently that sums up the situation pretty well, which said that it was generally acknowledged in the past that teachers and prospective teachers were willing to trade off low pay for job security, status – because it was a fairly high-status job – and pensions. Now, we’ve reached a situation where the salaries are still comparatively low, the status has decreased substantially and the benefits are under assault, too, so the two positives that outweighed the one negative are not so positive anymore.
But there are other factors also. I was at a statewide meeting of college of education leaders a few weeks ago and a colleague from another public institution in the state had just come from fact-finding sessions with school personnel in their area. They’d had several conversations about the teacher shortage and why more people aren’t entering the profession.
The audience came up with five p’s – pay, pressure, pensions, parents and policies – that discourage people from choosing teaching. Those issues speak to the educators’ interpretations of the context right now surrounding teaching as a profession.
What educational barriers discourage prospective students from entering teacher preparation programs?
The one that garners the most attention currently is the basic skills test requirement. Students can satisfy that requirement by either taking the actual test or by having a composite score of at least 22 on the ACT and the English/writing portion of the ACT, or by achieving a certain score on the SAT. Statewide, this is a significant hurdle for many prospective teacher education students.
This is a fraught issue because it speaks to perceptions of academic rigor, or lack thereof. But, there is little to no correlation between “basic skills proficiency” and success in teaching. So the question is how teacher education programs should ensure the academic quality of their students without unduly constricting the applicant pool.
Right now there is considerable discussion around this issue, and I believe that a reasonable alternative to the current requirement will be adopted sooner rather than later.
Student debt is a big issue in general, but especially so for graduates entering comparatively low-paying jobs. Institutions and state government need to work together on strategies to address the costs of entering teaching, including general college costs and those specifically associated with teacher preparation.
The concern essentially becomes one where it doesn’t hurt to increase teacher salaries, but there are also other factors at play. The districts say they do not know how to pay for them. In some cases, that is true. As we discussed in an earlier post today, some of these districts have smaller EAVs to work with, which means they have to have a higher levy to keep up with the wealthier areas that have a better tax base.
To the new funding formula…
The new evidence-based funding model draws upon research findings that show, for example, a 15-1 teacher-student ratio in third grade is optimal for best outcomes. If a district lacks money for such a ratio, that is figured into how much state support the school will receive.
If a district spends more for administrators than is considered best practice, the district is not rewarded for that spending with additional state money. And so on, across scores of indicators.
Since best practices generally cost more money, the formula will still, as before, attempt to provide increased money for property poor districts. Yet the funding will be based on what a model school district would look like.
In the past, state money has been allocated by Byzantine education politics into transportation, special education and other narrow buckets, unrelated to best practices.
To fund the formula fully will require about $7 billion annually in new money (above the present $70 billion in annual state “all funds” revenue). I estimate about two-thirds of that money will benefit Downstate school districts, where property wealth is low overall.
Related…
* Is CPS the most understaffed district in Illinois?
* Galesburg region battles drastic early childhood education cuts”
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Jun 21, 18 @ 4:21 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Yingling launches targeted cable ad buy for Lake County Assessor bill
Next Post: Motion to place SIU’s Dunn on leave fails
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Isn’t a minimum wage for teachers an unfunded mandate? Lol.
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Jun 21, 18 @ 4:23 pm
How does mandate relief for municipalities, townships, park districts, library districts, etc. free up more money for teachers?
Does Rauner still not understand how local governments work?
Comment by Dance Band on the Titanic Thursday, Jun 21, 18 @ 4:29 pm
With Rauner everything relates back to the destruction of labor.
He wants to get rid of teachers unions so that districts can pay poverty wages to teachers.
And he obviously doesn’t care that that would exacerbate the problem
Rauner is profit centric
Profit only
It’s obvious that he doesn’t care at all about whether a teacher
Can afford to teach
I’ve had it
With the malignant callousness of
Rauner
Raunerites
And the right wing
Come home to Jesus
Please
Comment by Honeybear Thursday, Jun 21, 18 @ 4:30 pm
God forbid Billionaire Bruce spare a few nickels to properly compensate educators.
Comment by Precinct Captain Thursday, Jun 21, 18 @ 4:33 pm
Low pay, demonization, no job security, pay more into pension as a tier 2 than will be received, huge student debt and Rauner thinks it’s about mandates?
Comment by wondering Thursday, Jun 21, 18 @ 4:33 pm
The Governor should try reading this some time.
“SECTION 1. GOAL - FREE SCHOOLS
A fundamental goal of the People of the State is the educational development of all persons to the limits of their capacities.
The State shall provide for an efficient system of high quality public educational institutions and services. Education in public schools through the secondary level shall be free. There may be such other free education as the
General Assembly provides by law.
The State has the primary responsibility for financing the system of public education.”
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Jun 21, 18 @ 4:37 pm
When I was getting ready for college, my teachers would ask why I wasn’t considering a career in education. They loved to point out that my mother had been a teacher for 13 years.
I’d tell them that they answered their own question. I grew up watching my mom suffer in her profession. The parents, the kids, the administration - no job is worth that.
Here we are 20 years since - she has a Master’s degree & I have an Associate’s, yet I make more money.
The problems with educator retention are far reaching. Fixing the pay scale is just the beginning.
Comment by Aimtomisbehave Thursday, Jun 21, 18 @ 4:43 pm
I’m in favor of the 40K minimum and of supporting more favorable teacher-student ratios. It’s hard to give unqualified support, though, when you have CPS teachers making six figure salaries to deny legally required special ed provision, shortchange the grading of student work and in many schools basically skip teaching the last two weeks of school.
For Rauner to then wade into this and whine about mandates is both a missed opportunity and a demonstration of his utter unfitness for the job. He’d let the CPS and the CTU get away with even more, so long as it buys him enough time to punt on the pension issue, deny the deterrent effect of student loan debt on entry into teaching, and avoid properly supporting poor suburban and almost all downstate districts.
Comment by Angry Chicagoan Thursday, Jun 21, 18 @ 4:51 pm
“You know, the real answer is to get the mandates off from Springfield so teachers can teach and principals can lead without costly regulations and restrictions on what they do.”
The above statement is all about privatizing public education.
Comment by Mama Thursday, Jun 21, 18 @ 4:51 pm
Actually the better answer is if we have collective bargaining why should the State impose a minimum. I believe there may be only one District without union representation- NSHS 113. Why would we not allow the unions to make their best deal -if they can’t get a starting salary of 40k why mandate it? If we are going to have a floor then the tit for tat should then be a ceiling. Rauner should veto this bill and say salary negotiations are a district by district issue
Comment by Sue Thursday, Jun 21, 18 @ 4:51 pm
Just the kind of double talk you would expect from Rauner not to support the bill.
Comment by The Dude Abides Thursday, Jun 21, 18 @ 4:58 pm
Sounds good to me Sue. But, none of this restriction on collecting bargaining and what can and can not be bargained. Let the strikes begin without teary eyed Republican moaning about child deprivation.
Comment by wondering Thursday, Jun 21, 18 @ 4:59 pm
Guessing most school districts impacted by this will either minimize increases between steps further down the salary schedule or group the steps below the minimum salary together into one giant step. You might end up with teachers with 1 and 5 years experience having the same pay, albeit both would be paid more than before.
Comment by City Zen Thursday, Jun 21, 18 @ 5:28 pm
==Guessing most school districts impacted by this will either minimize increases between steps further down the salary schedule or group the steps below the minimum salary together into one giant step. You might end up with teachers with 1 and 5 years experience having the same pay, albeit both would be paid more than before.==
Absolutely. The minimum in 21/22 is #37,076 and hits $40,000 in 22/23 which is a 7.9% annual increase.
Are districts going to raise the entire teaching staff by 7.9% in order to get to the new minimums?
Or will they just raise the bottom of the salary table to get to $40,000. You will have the first few cells in the salary table equal to $40,000 (i.e. BS-1 to BS-4).
Now that the State has also passed the new 3% cap on end of career salary increases, just jacking up the entire salary table by 7.9% will trigger massive TRS penalties for those that retire during that window.
Comment by Occam Thursday, Jun 21, 18 @ 5:40 pm
Not like the districts can act unilaterally. Issue will be if the IEA and IFT look to take advantage by demanding parity in terms of increases for the lower steps
Comment by Sue Thursday, Jun 21, 18 @ 5:47 pm
I don’t think the intent of the GA was to make these “catch-up” increases subject to the 3% cap. They should make that clear by passing a trailer bill in November which says so. As others have written, although the number of teachers affect is not huge, a few thousand, the individual district impact of paying the penalty will be huge, and wholly unbudgeted. Think six figures.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Thursday, Jun 21, 18 @ 6:01 pm
Given that the new 3% retirement cap came out of the budget process that only a few “Budgeteers” were a part of, and both this legislation and the Budget were passed within hours of each other, no one thought through the implications of the inherent conflict between the two.
Comment by Occam Thursday, Jun 21, 18 @ 6:15 pm
If we are going to have a floor then the tit for tat should then be a ceiling.
That’s just what happened. The 3% cap will filter down through the rest of the steps on salary schedules. Every district in the state will begin negotiations with a 3% cap on salary.
That hasn’t been that big of an issue because inflation has been flat for several years now, but once it starts to increase again there will be an even bigger effect on teacher shortages.
This state can’t stop shooting itself in the foot when it comes to teachers.
Comment by Morty Thursday, Jun 21, 18 @ 6:30 pm
===I don’t think the intent of the GA was to===
The cap was an agreed bill, negotiated by the leaders. The minimum wage was a separate issue.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jun 21, 18 @ 6:36 pm
I think this article from the Harvard Business Review by U of I professor is worth reading.
https://hbr.org/2018/06/when-did-the-u-s-stop-seeing-teachers-as-professionals
Comment by G'Kar Thursday, Jun 21, 18 @ 8:38 pm
But I thought (and read in various newspapers)that teachers are overpaid. Aren’t they?/s
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jun 21, 18 @ 9:41 pm
So he’s saying a minimum wage for teachers is a mandate? And we should eliminate mandates? Well, shall we just expand that? What about minimum wage for other professions? What about mandates against robbing banks? /s
Comment by Thoughts Matter Thursday, Jun 21, 18 @ 10:01 pm
I want to thank Barton for linking the BGA article on CPS understaffing to this post. Because CPS has an average teacher salary of around $69,000, yet is understaffed. As was evident from the ISBE Inquiry on CPS special education that reality impacted services for children and as the BGA article indicated it may have played some role in the sex abuse scandal.
Comment by Rod Friday, Jun 22, 18 @ 8:52 am