Yeah, you forgot something pretty big: The Consumer Price Index. The CPI is a standard index used to measure inflation, and when you figure the CPI increases over the past four years, TPS's most experienced teachers took a pay cut during that time. Even the impressive 4.63% increase for teachers with six years and a Masters degree drops to 1.88% with the CPI factored in.
If you accept that the average December to December CPI-U increase is 2.75% annually from 2002 through 2005, no teacher with over 13 years of experience saw an actual increase in purchasing power. In fact, every teacher with 14 years of experience saw their real wage drop from 2002 to 2006 by anywhere from .16% to 2.19%. IIRC, TPS has a large number of older teachers, so as a whole the teachers may have seen a net decrease in wages when factoring in the CPI.
posted by thenick at 08:40 P.M. EST on Mon Oct 16, 2006 #
Thenick - interesting point but the district is saying there were no raises. I think we see that a raise occurred. Also, if your numbers are correct, and I assume they are, just about every working man and woman took a pay cut. So your point is well taken, but you do have to admit there was a raise and I think you will agree that these increases were at least as good as what any one else - other than those benefiting from the Bush tax cuts.
Anybody have statistics on or know where they can be found of what the average increase in wages was for the 2002 to 2006 period. Perhaps we could use a government figure like the increase in personal income. Comments.
posted by sflagg at 09:25 P.M. EST on Mon Oct 16, 2006 #
interesting point but the district is saying there were no raises. I think we see that a raise occurred.
No, we didn't see that. What you did was look at the union steps and consider them raises. A raise would mean a teacher with ten years experience today would make more than a teacher with ten years experience four years ago. For a there to be a raise, the pay scale would need to increase, which it hasn't since 2002. Can anyone think of a commodity that teachers might use daily which has increased in price since 2002? Also, didn't TPS teachers give consessions regarding their health care just a couple of years back?
As usual, Wikipedia does a much better job than myself of explaining complex economic topics like the real wage.
And for the sake of fairness, you might also want to show on your tables a new hire's annual percentage increase. Because according to the TPS pay scale listed in your report, they've had an annual increase of 0%.
So your point is well taken, but you do have to admit there was a raise and I think you will agree that these increases were at least as good as what any one else - other than those benefiting from the Bush tax cuts.
No, they aren't. See below. TPS teachers in the 14-18 year band and up did not keep pace with Public and Private sector employees when looking at compensation increases and new hires have seen no increase in wages during the four year span.
Anybody have statistics on or know where they can be found of what the average increase in wages was for the 2002 to 2006 period.
Yeah, right here. For the record, wages have increased ~3.7% annually for government workers from 2002 to 2006. For private sector jobs, its somewhere in the area of 3.1% over that time period.
Seriously, this is all easily available data. Before releasing this report, have someone with more than a couple of economics classes under their belt look at these numbers to find other discrepancies. And you might want to fully site the author of the Buckeye Institute article as the author respectfully requested.
Regarding that Buckeye Institute article: The author really needs to understand that correlation does not imply causation. Because more teachers die wealth does not mean that teachers are overly compensated. There are numerous factors involved, like the fact that traditionally, teaching was an acceptable job for women who desired to work outside the home. I know that while my grandfather was a surgeon, my grandmother taught at a local school even though she did not need the money. This may sound odd to some, but sometimes people work because it gives them enjoyment.
posted by thenick at 11:15 P.M. EST on Mon Oct 16, 2006 #
Anybody have statistics on or know where they can be found of what the average increase in wages was for the 2002 to 2006 period. Perhaps we could use a government figure like the increase in personal income.
Try: http://www.dol.gov
posted by Offshore at 07:42 A.M. EST on Tue Oct 17, 2006 #
You may also want to try the Economic Policy institute.
posted by Offshore at 07:53 A.M. EST on Tue Oct 17, 2006 #
Mr. Flagg, will you be running for a seat on the Board of Education next year and provide leadership for TPS?
posted by Beowulf at 07:57 A.M. EST on Tue Oct 17, 2006 #
Offshore - the question was asked to see what sources others would suggest or what references are known by those who post here. It was not offered out of ignorance but to get opinions as to what others thought. It was made to further discussion. I posted this information to get feedback, but also to point out that in our opinion step increases are increases in compensation and can be (perhaps should be) viewed as raises. At a minimum, these step increases are increases in teacher compensation. Thanks for your suggestions.
I have a great deal of respect for many who post here. There are well reasoned arguments here and most posters do a fair amount of homework and are knowledgeable of a variety of resources.
Are there any other ideas or suggestions?
posted by sflagg at 08:01 A.M. EST on Tue Oct 17, 2006 #
Yes, I simply don't have the time right now.
posted by Offshore at 08:07 A.M. EST on Tue Oct 17, 2006 #
Beowulf - there are many roles for individuals to play besides being an elected official. Regardless, we need people to be more active in the decisions affecting their lives - whether it is voting or engaging in activities that hold our elected officials accountable. We need individuals and groups that "watchdog" the process. Normally, we can expect the press to play a major role in the "watchdog" process, but I think our local daily has let us down here so others have to step up.
I hope your question is one of interest and we are not going down the route that if you are not willing to stand for office, then you should be quiet about the topic. That is the same as saying if you are not a parent, then what interest do you have so just be quiet.
I have on occasion considered elected office. Anyone that takes a public role is asked the question and has considered it.
At this time, I do not intend to seek any elected office in 2007. Thank you for asking.
posted by sflagg at 09:00 A.M. EST on Tue Oct 17, 2006 #
Per usual I see a different issue :-)
Pulling up the first reference (http://tpsinfo.com/documents/tps_teacher_compensation.pdf ) provided - I see a disconnect in the information that doesn't make sense to me.
First and foremost - I think that the helping professions deserve the very best compensation that can be offered. I consider teaching to be the most important job that adults do. Whether it is with your own children or as a professional educator. I think teachers should be highly compensated and their performance verified regularly.
In the .pdf I see that after ten years of tenure, teachers holding a BA receive incrementally larger increases in pay. The variance between MA's and BA's is minimal in the first instance. With an annual compounded percentage of increase that is marginally higher to BA's than it is to MA's, the pay rate will inevitably become higher for an educator holding a Bachelor of Arts degree than for one who has obtained a Masters. This is unacceptable.
To further complicate the matter, following ten years of service, both MA's and BA's receive percentages of increased wage that are higher than those who have obtained a Ph.D. Again, makes no sense.
Throughout the chart it is illustrated that teachers who remain in service are compensated at a lower annual percentage of increase than new and unproven teachers. This also seems illogical to me.
Do we want to reward and retain those who have obtained higher degrees of education in our system? The .pdf shows that this is not occurring.
posted by katie82640 at 09:56 A.M. EST on Tue Oct 17, 2006 #
Katie,
I too noticed the way this salary schedule has a bias for teachers in the years 4 to 12. I believe it is appropriate that we consider those observations in the questions we ask. Is this salary schedule going to be effective in retaining and rewarding experienced teachers? This additional observation should be included in the report.
I think your comment "I think that the helping professions deserve the very best compensation that can be offered." is a key point - I will emphasize "that can be offered". How much in additional taxes are we all willing to "offer". But of course we need to make sure that the salaries are competitive to recruit (although that is not a major issue at this moment) and retain teaching staff.
posted by sflagg at 10:21 A.M. EST on Tue Oct 17, 2006 #
Good points Steve, all good points. Yes, the best compensation that we can offer.
I think that the school system has moved away from pro-active budgeting and making decisions based upon available funds. Re-active budgeting is always the very most expensive way to go. We don't have the funds to continue to do so.
An operating budget is a listing of revenue and expenses. The expenses are decided on a priority basis. The key to success here is the careful creation of this prioritized list. Educators and curriculum (on the ground teaching expendatures) should top that list. Every time.
The lowest prioritized expendatures do not get funded if there is not enough revenue to cover the budget.
Seems simple enough doesn't it?
posted by katie82640 at 10:47 A.M. EST on Tue Oct 17, 2006 #
Thenick - A draft by its connotation is a work in progress. I was looking for honest feedback, but did not expect we would get into an economics lesson. However, the forum is free form and all issues are fair game. Your comments add to the discussion, but this report was not intended to be treatise on the economics of real wages. If we want it to go further on this subject then we also need to work into the discussion that wages are set by market forces and then we need to discuss how unions can impact these market forces. If we want to go even further with the economics debate, we could talk about how the US has become a debtor nation. What happens when other countries decide that they no longer want to buy our debt? Interest rates would have to be increased to attract foreign capital, increased inflation would result as the dollar declines and until it stabilized through increased interest rates or balance of trade, and this would impact the economy including real wages and purchasing power. We could also talk about the impact on the standard of living when we have to start paying down that debt – in other words exporting wealth. It can get very complicated and certainly two classes in economics won’t be of much help.
Your points are not lost on me.
Again, most increases in wages affect an individual (no one stays at 10 years experience) as opposed to a static class of individuals such as teachers with 10 years of experience. With regard to those engaged in a profession, wage increases are generally due to either a merit increase or an increase due to length of service or a combination of both. Of course you can increase wages through upward mobility. I suppose you could consider increases due to tenure a promotion of sorts.
My point was that district officials have been saying that there have been no raises. I differ with your opinion about step salary increases. I believe it was a raise to the individual who went from 4 years to 8 years on the step schedule. If TPS argued the point as you have or if they said that there has not been an increase to the teacher’s salary schedule in the last four years, we would have treated the issue differently. But this bureaucracy has a chronic habit of obfuscating the facts to confuse the public. Let’s have a debate with the facts on the table as opposed to “leaving out” pertinent facts.
As to the citation of the author – the short report mentions what was in the article and provides a link to the article in its original form which includes the appropriate information about author, etc. There were no quotes in the short report. Although you make a good point and the draft report has been modified not only to include the link but also to indicate the author and source of the materials. We believed the link acted like an acknowledgement, but your point is well taken. And we want to follow proper protocol. Thank you!
As to your comment about correlation does not imply causation, I think the author makes some valid points about the compensation for teachers relative to a benchmark. In my opinion, the author made a good case for his conclusion, “So when you hear it said no one ever got rich teaching, don't believe it. And if you hear someone say teachers are only interested in money don't believe that either. As a group teachers do rather well thank you. And, in terms of ability to pay, they are more generous than even those with higher incomes.” (1)
Obviously, this does not apply to everyone and one must be careful when applying it to a group, but the author’s comparisons were to other benchmarks and groups for the most part. Thank you for pointing out the importance of critical thinking on the part of readers.
Regarding the teacher’s compensation schedule and new teachers up to 4 years of service, several years back the TFT negotiated a major increase in the starting salary of teachers. In order to get that large increase, the union accepted a flat salary schedule for the first 4 years. It was not our intention to mislead. If we did intend to mislead, we would not have included the salary schedule for all to see. We purposefully started with 4 years of experience because during the last round of teacher layoffs, only those with 7 years of experience were retained. (Now this topic could go on to talk about employee buyouts, etc. but we won’t). So a teacher 4 years ago before layoff began in 2004 would have 8 years at this time and still be employed. We could have started with 3 years and went to 7 years, but including the salary schedule allows everyone to replicate the calculations or do their own examples. An explanation for why we started with a 4 year teacher may be a good addition to the information. As would a disclaimer indicating we are not making any assumptions regarding inflation, purchasing power, real wages, etc. We will consider those additions.
Let’s ask the questions again: Are teachers well compensated? Are TPS teachers well compensated? Are salaries for TPS teachers competitive? Have TPS teachers seen an increase in their wages in the last 4 years?
I’m also interested in what everyone thinks about the basis for increased compensation – seniority, performance based, or a combination. How should teachers be compensated? Also, should teachers be evaluated based upon performance on a periodic basis?
(1) David W. Kirkpatrick is a senior education fellow with the Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions
posted by sflagg at 10:58 A.M. EST on Tue Oct 17, 2006 #
Katie - you hit on the heart of an issue we have been working on for some time. What are the priorities? How are they funded? How are the projects and programs evaluated for success? When and how do we re-prioritize?
We keep looking at this process and it appears to be hit or miss. You should set your priorities, determine their cost, establish benchmarks, and determine what you can fund. You start the next year by evaluating the programs and projects against the benchmarks and decide whether you want to keep funding that program based upon the results. In our opinion, a lot of money can be identified for the classroom and worthwhile projects if TPS followed some kind of process as described. Of course, it is a lot more complex than what we described here, but you stated well the basic philosophy.
posted by sflagg at 11:09 A.M. EST on Tue Oct 17, 2006 #
The basic philosophy is something that needs to be decided upon in our district. The prioritization should be evaluated, agreed upon and provided to the public for comment. Additionally the best resource to get information on how to teach children - well that'd be our professional educators. What mechanism is there for the teachers to talk to the school board? Is there a recommendation process? Is there even a comment box somewhere for them to slip a note into? I don't think so.
The district needs to revisit the bare basics and set the priorities. Subsequent decisions and funding should be made out of that set of commonly agreed to goals.
An uneducated person might call that 'revisiting the basics'.
I think it is called for in this case. I'd like to see the board be able to openly communicate with the community and the educators. And I'd like to see that reciprocated. I think that is the goal of some of the board members. Obviously the agenda of some others is to keep information from the tax payers, staff and students. Time to get this thing turned around!!
posted by katie82640 at 11:38 A.M. EST on Tue Oct 17, 2006 #
Oh, for fück's sake!
Starting in 2002, I dropped out of the merit raise system and began to be progressively assaulted by that most insatiable of bloodsuckers called Corporate America.
My immediate pay cut was 10%, with a heaping spoonful of other losses (those being primarily no profit sharing, no sick days, no merit raises, etc.). Yep, that's TEN PERCENT ... on top of being in "below middle class" or 4th lowest quartile (per Maggie Thurber's own calcuations in another topic -- I made less that $33K to begin with).
Please note that I was relatively lucky, since I lived (and continue to live) frugally in the first place. I could take the whack since I didn't have a big mortgage, car payment, and kids to feed. However, the 15yr+ vet employees around me caught up in the same wave of outsourcing suffered far worse losses. Their pay cuts were up to 15% initially, and they lost significant vacation time (which we note, they fairly earned through the corporate policies of the era).
Since that hit, 2 more waves of pay cuts hit our workforce. Here, however, I continued to be "fortunate". I was put into the bottom of the pay scales to begin with -- noting well my 20+ years of industry experience, which apparently no longer matter -- hence the pay cuts did not affect me. But I wasn't the target. No, this was institutionalized age discrimination. Further pay cuts of 5% or so hit each time for the 15yr+ guys. They lost more vacation time. Etc.
The program of making vets miserable enough to quit, was progressing quite well. The gains from such a program have just been monetized by the elite, so it's not like the program served any social benefit.
Now, you might be sayin' that GuestZero is doin' some whinin' and cryin' here, and that's pathetic. However, the entire point of this wailing and gnashing of teeth is that I have no sympathy whatsoever when some teacher laments only receiving a 4% raise this year. Oh, boo fücking hoo! Take a 10% pay cut, chum, and then we'll talk about how much YOU are suffering. You just might have to sell your enormous house in P-burg ... and move back into a modest dwelling in Toledo and drive an old car (like us working class do).
The larger point here, other than gruffness, is that I will not support 4% yearly wage increases for public servants while my wages are dropping (or work hours are increasing). The wage increases don't magically get made from spun moonbeams. Those wage increases are being dragged from my goddamn DECREASING paycheck.
We literally cannot hollow out the wealth and earning power of the working class while the parasitical classes reap greater and greater benefits. Screw them. All of us workers need to be in the same boat before all consider plugging the holes that are making the boat list. To quote some article I read recently, the rising tide doesn't raise all boats when most boats have been holed by the elite.
As for the TPS teachers who have the gall to complain: shut the fück up. You make good wages already, considering you live in a depressed area that is just getting worse. I DARE YOU to say the word "raise" in my face one more time. {"the finger"}
posted by GuestZero at 12:03 P.M. EST on Tue Oct 17, 2006 #
(slowly slides GZ's coffee cup away)
Serious question - are you in a field related to education? I had thought IT maybe...
B/c MY thought, bundling up some large topics, is that improvement in the crime rate, enticing business to the area and improving the school district would turn our local economy around.
However, having attended some of the local goings on lately - I think those things are going to be difficult to get done until the public starts to get vocal...
posted by katie82640 at 12:11 P.M. EST on Tue Oct 17, 2006 #
Ok Guest Zero --- I don't know that all teachers are complaining. I am grateful to have a job. And I hope to continue with TPS. Some teachers make a lot of money with supplementals, that should not be. Some jobs are never done. I am very content to make what I do - when I see some recent graduates can't find a job at all. Steve Flagg, once again your points are of interest.
posted by Teacher at 01:35 P.M. EST on Tue Oct 17, 2006 #
I was looking for honest feedback, but did not expect we would get into an economics lesson. However, the forum is free form and all issues are fair game. Your comments add to the discussion, but this report was not intended to be treatise on the economics of real wages.
Any comparison of wages over several years needs to include the real wage, otherwise the numbers are inaccurate, just as inaccurate at TPS stating teachers don't get a raise.
If we want it to go further on this subject then we also need to work into the discussion that wages are set by market forces and then we need to discuss how unions can impact these market forces.
OK, what are the starting, 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 year pay rates for teachers in the school districts surrounding Toledo?
If we want to go even further with the economics debate,
No, we don't. Well, I kind of do, but I don't think this is the thread to do so in.
It can get very complicated and certainly two classes in economics won’t be of much help.
Then I'm damn glad I've taken more than two economics classes. But an understanding of microeconomics would go very far in helping you understand wage structures and how a raise can be nullified by inflation.
I believe it was a raise to the individual who went from 4 years to 8 years on the step schedule.
But during their eight years of employment in TPS, they didn't even receive a cost of living increase. So to claim they were overcompensated during the four years of raises is disingenuous.
But this bureaucracy has a chronic habit of obfuscating the facts to confuse the public. Let’s have a debate with the facts on the table as opposed to “leaving out” pertinent facts.
So inflation is not a pertinent fact when determining wages? It's the best way to measure your actual compensation over a period of time. While you may get a raise annually, if the raise doesn't outpace the CPI increase, you'd make less every year.
In my opinion, the author made a good case for his conclusion
But the author never really presented any evidence. How many of those teachers who died wealthy were members of a dual income household? How many teachers were members of households with above average incomes? How many inherited a large sum of money from spouses? It seems that without actually presenting any data, the author could easily cherry pick facts to fit the conclusion.
Have TPS teachers seen an increase in their wages in the last 4 years?
You're still looking at this the wrong way. A teacher with ten years of experience is making the same amount of money that a teacher with ten years of experience made four years ago. When a teacher with eight years of experience finally reaches that ten year mark, their salary is less than what it was two years ago when the increase in CPI is included.
As usual, the truth lies somewere in between the two disagreeing parties. While some teachers have seen a small actual wage increase, those with 14 or more years of experience have not. If it's true that all teachers with seven years or less have been laid off, then the majority of teachers actually saw their real wage fall over the past four years.
Also, I noticed a discrepancy with your numbers regarding the 10-14 year experience range. You claim a teacher with a BA would begin their 14th year with an annual pay rate of $48,904, when according to the pay scale, they'd make only $45,233.
posted by thenick at 01:55 P.M. EST on Tue Oct 17, 2006 #
Probably not what you're looking for, but this September 2004 posting points to a Blade article about teacher's pay. My notes from that posting:
"TPS pays a higher starting salary than Ottawa Hills for teachers with a Bachelors degree. But OH has a much higher average salary at $60,621 versus TPS's $45,968. With a Master's degree, the starting salaries between the two are about the same. With just a Bachelors degree and 27 years experience, TPS pays $55,577 and OH pays $53,091. With a Masters degree and 27 years experience, OH pays $70,788 and TPS pays $60,595."
I remember the article in the print edition of the paper had a nice chart, showing the stats, but that graph doesn't exist online.
From the Blade article:
"Toledo Public Schools, which employs about 2,500 full-time teachers, pays $32,697 annually to a teacher straight out of college. That figure is on the higher end when compared to other school districts in northwest Ohio. Williams County's Bryan City Schools, for example, starts a teacher at $26,205 a year."
"Catholic high schools in the metro Toledo area paid an average starting salary of $24,506 last year. On the elementary-school level, the average starting pay was $20,925."
Nationally, the average salary for a teacher was $45,771, according to an annual teacher salary survey by the American Federation of Teachers for the 2002-03 school year, the most recent year available."
"Ohio ranked 15th in the nation in average salary at $45,515 - up 2.8 percent from the previous year, but still slightly below the national average. But the state ranked 27th for its average beginning teacher salary of $28,866, up 5 percent from the year before."
"Michigan teachers on average took home nearly $10,000 more than their Ohio counterparts. The average teacher salary in that state was $54,020 for the 2002-03 school year, which was the second-highest in the nation behind California. The highest average teacher salary in southeast Michigan was in Monroe County's Jefferson Schools, which was $61,526 in 2002, the most recent year for which data were available."
posted by jr at 02:55 P.M. EST on Tue Oct 17, 2006 #
Oh - and I forgot but there was some wage increase (for the teachers) that was tied to a levy in recent years - does anybody remember the story with that? Someone was trying to tell me at a recent meeting and we were interrupted.
posted by katie82640 at 03:22 P.M. EST on Tue Oct 17, 2006 #
GZ - clarification: those weren't my numbers - they were Census bureau figures and estimates.
Question - to anyone in general: As it was explained to me, unions originally negotiated step increases to allow for yearly pay increases during the terms of their contracts. Thus, a four-year contract would cover at least 4 steps, one for each year (usually for each classification). Again, as I was told, this meant that the employees would know what their wages would be for each year in the contract and that there usually were NOT other pay increases during the term of the contract.
It was also explained to me that, over time, the steps became a 'starting point' for negotiations and that yearly "cost of living increases" were then applied to the various steps. This resulted in both step and COLA increases being applied to an individual's yearly wage.
If this is not correct, I'd appreciate some clarification.
From a pay perspective, most of the county's "steps" are around 5% difference, except for those steps which have a range (ex. step 5 is $45,000 to $51,000 and an employee can be anywhere in between the low/high). Pay increases within a range are usually the percentage (3% this year) where those at a particular step would see the step amount increase by the percentage (again, 3% this year). Individuals can move to a higher step based upon varying criteria, usually dependent upon the individual contract.
It would not be unusual for a person to start in January at the next step which could be a 5% wage increase over the previous year, plus the 3% overall increase. So a person making $15.00 would have a step increase to $15.75 which became $15.97 because of the overall percentage increase. This scenario means that the person actually got a 6% increase in actual wages...
Additionally, many new hires have a starting wage, a post-probationary wage and then get a 1-year step increase - meaning that they get 2 increases by the end of their 1st year. I'd imagine this would be similar in most organizations which might skew any analysis of starting wages versus long-term wages.
Anyway, any clarification on the history of the steps is appreciated.
posted by MaggieThurber at 03:25 P.M. EST on Tue Oct 17, 2006 #
There is an error in the chart at year 14 - the rate s/b $45,233. I guess my finger slipped to the next line at 15 years. It has been corrected. No sinister intentions here, just a plain old error.
Interesting thing about a forum like this is that everyone has an opinion, but apparently even after you explain your opinion and basis for the opinion you are still looking at it the wrong way. No, with all due respect, I have a different opinion - more money is more money. The increases may have meant a loss of purchasing power or a lower real wage, but it was less of a loss than no additional increases.
GZ points out exactly what has happened in corporate America especially in Toledo. And now we see corporate entities like the Blade asking for union concessions, etc. IMO, it appears that public sector jobs are always the last to go or have to deal with market forces.
Teacher - you go to the point about market conditions. Teacher layoffs have created a surplus of trained teachers in the Toledo area. (If you want to move to Las Vegas, I understand that there are over 400 openings and they are even giving land away that you can build on.) Some may get jobs at charters, but charter school enrollment does not appear to have grown much in the last year. According to the SF-3 report on state foundation funding for Oct. 6, 2006 in comparison to the Oct. 7, 2005 report - looking at the community school deduction - charter school enrollment increased around 850 students.
The big issue Teacher points out is supplemental contracts. It is a point made in the draft report. It's time to get some information on just how much is paid out for supplemental contracts.
JR - I too remember the Blade article. It appears to be a mixed bag - some places where TPS is better and others where it is worse in comparison with districts in NW Ohio. The article from the Buckeye Institute looked at it from a different perspective. Thanks for reminding us of the Blade article. I expect there will be another one sometime soon. As this issue is bound to heat up with contracts expiring March 31, 2007 and a school district that seems intent on placing a levy before this community next year.
posted by sflagg at 04:21 P.M. EST on Tue Oct 17, 2006 #
Katie, if a levy is passed or other conditions exist where the district is better off than projected, a retroactive increase of 1.48% will be given to TFT and AFSCME back to Feb. 2003 (part of the increase was back to Aug. 2003). If a levy had been on the ballot and passed this November, the amount paid out to teachers and non teaching staff would be over $11 million. (Note: the $11 million figure was estimated from information obtained by the TPS treasurer - I believe this amount has also been reported in the Blade) The 1.48% would have been added to the salary schedule that we have been discussing and that would have increased annual personnel expenditures by about $2.5 million (this amount is an educated guess based upon the annual expenditure for personnel services and a 14% add for retirement benefits).
posted by sflagg at 04:38 P.M. EST on Tue Oct 17, 2006 #
(eyes crossing) So, not overlooking the other info - but can I understand your last post to mean that we're actually indebted to the tune of 11m in back salary? If so - who's the bonehead who thought that was a good idea?
posted by katie82640 at 05:24 P.M. EST on Tue Oct 17, 2006 #
Katie - The memo of understanding was signed in March of 2004. So that makes Sanders and the previous board responsible for this act. Although it is interesting that those that signed for the board are Clinton Faulkner and Dan Burns for AFSCME and just Faulkner for the TFT memo. Makes you wonder what the Board really knew. Actually, it does not make me wonder. I don't think the previous board knew much about anything that went on. I believe they were treated like mushrooms and were little more than a "rubber stamp" for the TPS bureaucracy.
If you want to review the MOU, just click here. Note with interest items numbers 4 and 5 on page 3 of the document. It tells you all about when the payment is made.
posted by sflagg at 08:53 P.M. EST on Tue Oct 17, 2006 #
I think everybody better read that MOU because my reply isn't fit to print.
I'd like to hear some other opinions here...I can't possibly be understanding this situation correctly.
posted by katie82640 at 09:36 P.M. EST on Tue Oct 17, 2006 #
I can safely say without cursing that I now have an understanding of the reasoning behind the policy of not posting TPS documents on the internet for public access.....
posted by katie82640 at 09:47 P.M. EST on Tue Oct 17, 2006 #
Re: keeping and retaining well-qualified teachers . . . Many districts are working out retirement buy-out plans for their experienced and well-qualified teachers. Those teachers who have been with the district for years over-inflate the percentage of the district's budget that goes toward salaries. So to reduce this percentage (I believe that the state rec'ds that it is no more than 80% of the budget), they are offering retirement incentives.
posted by corky at 11:58 P.M. EST on Tue Oct 17, 2006 #
Stuff like that MOU only cause me to vote NO (and with pleasure) on each and every TPS levy. They claim they need the money to operate the school system, but a lot of that income is like a rubber band set to snap back into their pockets, leaving the claims underfunded. I evilly enjoy calling this FRAUD.
These teachers are making firmly-middle-classed wages. Considering what's happening in the private sector (picture a corporate Pac-Man{tm} going wokka wokka wokka after wages and benefits), teachers should be grabbing citizens in the street and giving them big sloppy kisses (eww) in gratitude for keeping their good wages steady.
And, Kate, gawd-demmit, GIVE ME MY COFFEE BACK! :^)
posted by GuestZero at 02:12 A.M. EST on Wed Oct 18, 2006 #
Lol :-) Yer coffee's cold now.
I think it should be remembered that we do have two new board members since this agreement was created. Oh - shoot - I'm sorry, we have THREE new board members, it's just that Mr. Steel slipped into the Sykes/Barnett machine so seamlessly and transparently that I can't separate them easily in my mind :-)
We can't keep putting people in office that are willing to spend like this. Past the point that can be paid and into indebtedness into the future. Unbelievable.
Also - I highly doubt that the Superintendant or the Supers' employees have the authority to negotiate debt on behalf of a sitting school board. Otherwise, why does the board have to authorize expendatures if the Super and staff can just do it?
Any educated opinion on that?
posted by katie82640 at 09:29 A.M. EST on Wed Oct 18, 2006 #
GZ, when I attended Start H.S. in the 70s I had the good fortune to have Helene Sanzenbacher for a teacher. She had retired before you got there. Among the many things she taught me and others, she said people use profanity that lack the intelligence to use the proper word. I am not above letting one fly now and then. You made a good point that there too many administrators, but I promise the language doesn't improve your ability to get your message across. I posted on this website that the 12 administrators that went to Cleveland was not a cause for panic, but an opportunity to restructure to make some, if not most of the positions unnecessary.
Katie, I could be all wet on this but it was my understanding that the MOU replaced some larger increases that had already been negotiated. It didn't seem so boneheaded at the time. Had it not been for the agreement, we would probably have higher paid teachers right now, but fewer of them.
Mr. Flagg, there is a teacher in my house. We understand like GZ said, that school is a business and business has its ups and downs. There is no guarantee your income is going to go up or even continue at all. The salary scale is the way it is at least in part because of that wonderful bargaining process we have. In a perfect world we can put together a fair and equitable plan that will attract and keep quality people in the system and keep things on an even keel over the long term, not just long enough to get us through to the next bargaining session.
posted by bobthedad at 12:17 A.M. EST on Fri Oct 20, 2006 #
bobthedad said: “[...] she said people use profanity that lack the intelligence to use the proper word.”
Don't be coy. Just come out and say that you think I'm stupid (i.e. "lack[ing] the intelligence"). From there, it should be a short piece of work to rebut my stupid arguments, eh?
Yet ... you still got my message, improper words or not, intelligent or not. So, I'm sensing that the implied point here is you're uncomfortable with profanity.
Well, jeepers! What makes you uncomfortable is of no concern to me whatsoever. Adults curse, and as adults we are free to. Fück, man, do I have to spell this out for you? :^P
posted by GuestZero at 03:55 A.M. EST on Fri Oct 20, 2006 #
There was discussion within TPS of offering buyouts. Apparently the administration views them as too expensive because of the TFT’s insistence that teachers get severance pay in addition to the buyout. Teachers per their contract can accumulate sick time. They get 15 days a year of sick time. They can accumulate up to 370 days and there is a formula based upon years of service that end up requiring the district to make some pretty good sized severance payments when a teacher retires. From what I understand, TFT leadership doesn’t want to budge on this payment for those that take the buyout so any “buyout package” would have to include some additional large payments. Looking at the TFT contract, teachers with over 20 years of service get a severance payment computed as follows: Daily wage rate x number of sick days accumulated x 60%. So a teacher with the maximum of 370 accumulated sick days would be paid for 222 days.
Here is another huge benefit that most workers don’t get – 15 days of sick leave per year and you get to carry it over and add to it every year. Since teachers are paid for a 190 day school year, you can essentially get more than a year’s pay when you retire. Also, teachers are allowed to “give” sick time to other teachers when another teacher has a chronic illness or are incapacitated for a long period of time. Further, there are professional and emergency leaves of absence that result in paid time off. IMO, previous boards have been very generous with taxpayer dollars.
posted by sflagg at 06:25 A.M. EST on Fri Oct 20, 2006 #
sflagg - most public contracts allow for the payment of accumulated sick days, so this concept isn't 'unusual' for public employees. Although the 370 max at 60% seems to be a bit higher than others I've seen.
posted by MaggieThurber at 07:03 A.M. EST on Fri Oct 20, 2006 #
Maggie, yea I'm aware that this is a public sector issue (benefit). But most workers in Toledo and the US are not pubic sector. Although, this seems to be a growing job market given local, state and federal government's inability to control spending or the need to make sure they spend every dollar they get in taxes. It would be interesting to compare other public sector contracts. How many bargaining units does the county negotiate with? Who would I contact to get this information. Thanks!!
posted by sflagg at 07:43 A.M. EST on Fri Oct 20, 2006 #
On the surface certain benefits may appear to be or will actually be generous, but when you compare the compensation to other school districts or to private sector jobs you have to compare apples to apples.
I can't accumulate sick days in my private sector job, but there have been times when I have received matching 401k contributions that the public sector may not receive. Do the Ottawa Hills teachers get to save sick days in the same manner? If not, maybe that helps to explain the disparity in salaries in certain ranges mentioned earlier. For this to make any sense you have to make sure you are comparing the total compensation package.
posted by bobthedad at 08:07 A.M. EST on Fri Oct 20, 2006 #
bobthedad - I hear you. I have nothing but the highest regard for teachers. Have a few in my own family as well. And I think that their pay should be one of the very top priorities in our district.
You said if the MOU hadn't been signed we'd have better paid teachers, but fewer.
You do know about the layoffs right? We didn't have the funds and will not have the funds for this expense. It isn't a matter of not thinking we want to pay it - we had a 19 million (that's MILLION) dollar deficit this past year. We are closing schools, laying off teachers and as of last year 7,000 of roughly 34,000 students had left the system.
Additionally, it is my opinion that the Superintendant or his employees had no authority to make such an agreement.
Do you think that's right? That bothers me. There may be quite a few teachers ASSUMING that this is a valid agreement because they should have been able to believe that it is. They may be expecting this to actually be paid out. But to my knowledge, the school board is the only authority in the district to have either signed this or given the authorization, as a body - to a designated party.
posted by katie82640 at 08:34 A.M. EST on Fri Oct 20, 2006 #
bobthedad - exactly - apples to apples. We're going to do some research and ask some questions including checking with some districts. There are some other benefits that have not been discussed yet. We're checking them out and will post later. When doing comparisons, you need to look at total compensation which would include salary and all fringe benefits from retirement, sick leave, health insurance, etc. Your comment about your employer matching your 401K benefits would compare with the district contributing 7% of a teacher’s salary to the state retirement system. Teachers are required to contribute 7%. However, this is in lieu of social security payroll taxes that the public sector covered by the state retirement system does not pay. But that is a whole new can of worms that we can open.
Looking just at salaries can give you a distorted picture. There is more to come. Thanks for your thoughts - they add to the discussion.
Some may think I am picking on teachers - that was not my intention. I have the highest regard for teachers (more so as I visit classroom at the invitation of teachers) although that does not necessarily extend to their union leadership. Now you think I am picking on unions - no, I also understand how important unions have been in developing a middle class in America as well as occupational safety, etc. When I started this thread, I simply wanted to point out that the district has been saying one thing to justify a new levy when in reality individual teachers (not a class of teachers) have seen increases in their paycheck. Other discussion items like real wages, CPI, market forces, etc. are valid in the big picture and should be part of the discussion when considering overall compensation.
posted by sflagg at 08:36 A.M. EST on Fri Oct 20, 2006 #
TPS facing deficit of $12M, $109M by 2011
Toledo Public Schools is predicting staggering deficits over the next five years, starting with $12.7 million next school year and $109.8 million by 201
posted by katie82640 at 11:41 A.M. EST on Fri Oct 20, 2006 #
Sflagg - you said teachers receive: "15 days of sick leave per year and you get to carry it over and add to it every year."
Are you sure about that? I ask because the tolerance level in the district for missed days is TEN days a year I believe. Per the attendance policy - they wouldn't be able to excuse a teacher for being sick more days than they allow for the students?
Real confused on that one.....
posted by katie82640 at 03:25 P.M. EST on Fri Oct 20, 2006 #
sflagg - the county's HR department can give you the data on how many different units there are in the county...I think they can include all the ones under the various elected officials and not just the commissioners....
posted by MaggieThurber at 03:33 P.M. EST on Fri Oct 20, 2006 #
Page 103 of the TFT Contract.
"A teacher on an annual salary shall accumulate a maximum of fifteen (15) days sick leave during any employment year, the same to be computed at the rate of one and one-quarter (1 1/4) days for each completed month of service."
"Sick leave shall be cumulative to a maximum of 370 days. This maximum shall remain at 370 days thereafter."
Using a 190 day school year less the 7 holidays leaving 183 days that teachers have to be at school means they can miss 8.2% of 183 days. Of course, if you have accumulated sick time you could be absent more than 15 days.
To be fair, the sick leave provision in the TFT contract is fairly standard in public sector contracts in Toledo. I'm not sure how much others can accumulate. I'm not certain how often you find these provisions in private sector labor agreements.
posted by sflagg at 07:25 A.M. EST on Sat Oct 21, 2006 #
sflagg said: “I'm not certain how often you find these provisions in private sector labor agreements.”
Sick days? I have those. Doesn't everyone? When I'm sick, I don't go to work, and I don't get paid. Simple. Naturally, I tend to work when sick.
Of course, my "labor agreement" is even simpler: work or be fired.
Seriously and more on-topic, 370-day retention of sick days is outrageous and needs to stop.
posted by GuestZero at 02:07 P.M. EST on Sat Oct 21, 2006 #
Well I think it's patently unfair to pay teachers with a sick day policy that allows 15 days when the students are permitted to miss 10 days before they run afoul of the system for missing too many days.
Fair's fair, y'know? They can't have it both ways....
posted by katie82640 at 06:29 P.M. EST on Sat Oct 21, 2006 #
Katie, I am well aware of the layoffs. Each time they happen they hit closer to home. All I meant was the MOU was an attempt to avoid some of them.
Mr. Flagg, you haven't sent any signals that I have seen that you are anti-teacher. Since you are taking the initiative to try to design a system that works for everyone I just wanted to include my two bits.
GZ, I have the same sick pay benefits you have. I also have a hard time making sense of allowing the accumulation of sick days, but they were negotiated in good faith and they'll eventually be negotiated out the same way. I am not sure why the public seems to accept the idea that having a job in the public sector entitles people to benefits the private sector doesn't commonly receive.
posted by bobthedad at 06:31 P.M. EST on Sat Oct 21, 2006 #
Here is some GOOD news on the subject:
Excerpt from the story (E.A.)
"....Education Secretary Margaret Spellings planned to announce the first of 16 grants, worth $42 million, including $5.5 million for Ohio, on Monday. The government has not announced the other grant winners.
Using the old-fashioned incentive of cash, President Bush's program encourages schools to set up pay scales that reward some teachers and principals more than others. Those rewards are to be based mainly on test scores, but also on classroom evaluations during the year.
The grants are also aimed at luring teachers into math, science and other core fields.
Teachers normally are paid based on their years in class and their education. Yet more school districts are experimenting with merit pay, and now the federal government is, too....:
posted by katie82640 at 11:46 A.M. EST on Sun Oct 22, 2006 #
Toledo Public Schools is predicting staggering deficits over the next five years, starting with $12.7 million next school year and $109.8 million by 2011
Well, I think we can safely say this is the last year for Edgewater Elementary.
posted by thenick at 02:36 P.M. EST on Sun Oct 22, 2006 #
370 sick days is ridiculous. Accumulated or not. I get 5 but thats because i work for a good company. they dont have to give me 5 but they do. BUT if you dont use it, you lose it.
posted by tm at 10:07 A.M. EST on Mon Oct 23, 2006 #
thenick - I hope you are wrong about that. I believe the parents are strongly opposed to closing that school -
tm - I agree with you but it was contracted for - so we can't blame the teachers for it.
I'd say that the acceptable number of school days - at a base minimum should at least BE the same number for staff and pupils. I mean is there an attendance policy or not? And if so - how is it fair to have two sets of rules. There is an acceptable number of days to miss. That shouldn't vary between staff and students.
posted by katie82640 at 08:39 P.M. EST on Mon Oct 23, 2006 #
Another story on the Federal payout. Toledo is one of the four Ohio cities that will receive the money.
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- The first federal bonuses to reward teachers who raise student test scores have gone to four of Ohio's biggest, poorest and most academically challenged districts - where teacher pay is already well above the state average.....
Schools in Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus and Toledo will share the Ohio grants.
Teacher pay in Cleveland, Cincinnati and Columbus is well above the state average of $50,772. The average teacher salary in Toledo, which has the best academic standing of the four districts, is $49,859, according to the most recent data from the state Department of Education."
Emphasis added....
posted by katie82640 at 01:33 P.M. EST on Tue Oct 24, 2006 #
I hope you are wrong about that. I believe the parents are strongly opposed to closing that school.
The $12M needs to come from somewhere, and considering Edgewater barely made it past the last round of cuts. I can't see it making it through the next round.
posted by thenick at 02:33 P.M. EST on Tue Oct 24, 2006 #
bobthedad - don't misread - I'm not arguing the points with you. We are in agreement.
I find that there are alot of disconnected, older policies that don't make any sense. There should be a continuity of logic in policy.
There should be a basic premise of fairness. I did feel better after seeing the pay (bands isn't the right word) rates for the teachers. They are paid more than I had thought. And they should have good benefits.
I also like to see the merit bonuses from the Federal government. I think that when we see adminstrative costs go from a large lead at the first priority position and teachers' costs and academic costs go up - our problems will be in hand. The students are the reason for the system. The teachers are the tools. Everything else, buildings, admin etc....well that's all just support stuff so the students and the teachers can get about the business of learning.
At least it was INTENDED to be....
posted by katie82640 at 08:55 P.M. EST on Tue Oct 24, 2006 #
Katie, I was going to lay off your comments on the apparent differences in sick days allowed between students and teachers. Since you mentioned it again, I couldn't resist. First, 15 days is excessive unless you have a serious medical problem. They negotiated for it, and it was probably the result of a compromise for something else they didn't get. As for the 10 days for students, that topic has been brought up by teachers at every fall open house I have attended for years. They always say they will be happy to work with any student that has a legitimate reason for an extended absence, but students who make a habit of not showing up are very difficult to teach. Nancy with mono is going to catch a break. Sluggo won't be so lucky after 10 visits from the truant officer.
posted by bobthedad at 09:57 P.M. EST on Tue Oct 24, 2006 #
legitimate reason <-- that's the critical factor. Attendance is a real problem for the schools I realize. It's also a big problem for the classroom as well. While Sluggo is catching visits from the truant officer he's also not keeping up with the work that's going on in the classroom.
The amount of sick days that the teachers have is negotiated by the contract. So I really don't have a comment on that. But I think that to hand Sluggo a reason to complain that there is an unfairness in the relationship between the attendance expectations of the students and the staff - I just don't think we need to hand the kids a reason to feel that there is inequity in expectations of standards.
posted by katie82640 at 09:25 A.M. EST on Wed Oct 25, 2006 #
Thank you. You emphasized my point. Sluggo can't learn anything if he's not there. At least the teachers can get a sub and there's a chance (slim) that education can take place. I don't recall very many subs that were able to stick with the lesson plan, but sometimes they split classes amongst remaining regular teachers that can keep things moving. Realistically the 15 days is too much.
I would love to see incentive programs for effective teachers, but there is clearly temptation to abandon teaching to achieve incentive goals. When Mr. Grant was Super a few years ago the board put an incentive in his contract if suspension rates went down, so he basically banned suspensions. It got him a bonus check, but didn't achieve the goal. People are already concerned with teaching to the test. One way to improve your test results is to try to avoid getting students with poor academic histories. Its like choosing sides for a pick up ball game. The best players get picked first. Someone will have to decide who they will trust to give a fair evaluation of the teacher's performance. If we can find a way to be fair about it, I am all for it.
posted by bobthedad at 12:53 P.M. EST on Wed Oct 25, 2006 #
Yup - we are on the same page. They are tough questions, need solutions that are fair to everybody. I don't know that diminishing the teachers' package is something I'd want to do. 15 days is probably the outside of what can be considered as reasonable - but I'm a big proponent of making sure you pay teachers well.
Pay them well, reward them for success. I'd like to see a merit situation too - but if the district or government office did it - it would be regulated past the point it made any sense.
I'd like to see somebody with an interest in this that was wealthy AND philanthropic just randomly show up at the schools, seek out excellence and give the teacher a check :-)
posted by katie82640 at 01:52 P.M. EST on Wed Oct 25, 2006 #
By the same token, what about "combat" pay? Also, what about teachers of students with special needs? Hey, anybody can teach “smart” people.
posted by Offshore at 01:09 P.M. EST on Thu Oct 26, 2006 #
Syndicate ToledoTalk
