District 300 Offer to Teachers That Was Rejected by Their Union

Here’s what’s on the District 300 web site:

This synopsis is not inclusive of the full Board proposal, but attempts to highlight the major issues discussed during negotiations and recent mediation sessions.

Elementary Class Size Proposal:

The Board agrees with the teachers union that reducing class size at the elementary level is a top priority. To that end, the Board is committed to spending approximately $2.4 million to lower class size, which funds 27.5 additional teachers and lowers the number of students in 85 classrooms.


Salary Proposal:

The Board is committed to giving raises to teachers in the form of step increases (a salary increase based on the length of time a teacher has been employed in the district) for each year of the contract, as well as a percentage increase to base pay in the first and third years of the contract.


Teachers with a Masters or Doctorate degree on Step 25 of the salary schedule will receive increase of 2.75% in Year 1, 2.00% in Year 2, and 2.50% in Year 3.

Insurance Proposal:

No change to current contribution levels. The teachers’ proportionate share of premium payments for health, dental or vision insurance will not increase. If the annual premium increases beyond 14% a joint administration and LEAD committee will meet to discuss plan changes to limit the increase.

Retirement Proposal:

It is common knowledge that the General Assembly is considering legislation that would shift the State’s required contributions to the teachers’ pension system to local school districts, or penalize local school districts for any end of career salary increases. The Board believes that end-of-service retirement enhancements need to be phased out. Therefore, the Board has proposed that the current retirement plan’s end-of-career salary increases be phased out during the three years of this agreement and that the post-retirement benefit be reduced. This allows teachers at or near retirement age to have one final opportunity to take advantage of end of career salary increases.


At the conclusion of the 2014-2015 school year, new retirees will no longer be eligible for an end-of-career salary increase.

High School Schedule and Working Conditions:

In order to improve working conditions resulting from recent changes to the structure of the high school day, the Board agrees to LEAD’s proposal of moving to a nine period high school day. This can be accomplished without changes to the current start and end times of the school day, and would include:

  • Five periods of classroom assignments, with the exception of music and PE teachers
  • One period of supervision, which could include lunch supervision, academic support period, tutoring center, study hall, or compliance period for education services staff
  • One period of duty free lunch
  • Two periods of plan preparation

Education Services Compliance Assurance Days Proposal:

In order to address compliance of student Individualized Educational Plans, elementary and middle school special education teachers will be allocated an additional five compliance assurance days, for a total of eight days, each school year. This will also allow education services staff the appropriate time to meet the ever changing legal requirements and maintain appropriate communication with parents and outside agencies.

Additional proposals that impact or enhance teacher working conditions:

  • Co-teaching pairs will be compensated for one hour of plan time a week at the non-instructional rate if schedules do not allow for a common plan time between the pair during the school day.
  • The Board agrees with LEAD 300’s concept of increased flexibility for teacher arrival and departure times.
  • The Board agrees with LEAD 300’s concept of increased flexibility for teacher plan time.
  • The Board agrees with LEAD 300’s concept of defined parameters for faculty and department meetings.
  • The Board agrees with LEAD 300 that bullying should not be tolerated in the workplace. The Board has proposed a joint effort to create a Board policy to address this issue.
  • The Board has proposed an increase to the extra-duty pay schedule equal to 2% for the 2012-2013 SY, 1% for the 2013-2014 SY and 1% for the 2014-2015 SY.
  • In response to recent changes in the law, the Board has proposed language changes to the current collective bargaining agreement to ensure compliance with state statutes.

According to Board of Education Spokesperson, Joe Stevens, “We believe we were making good progress to address the union’s top priorities including class size and working conditions. Now that the union has declared impasse, we are waiting to receive their final proposal to resume future negotiations.”

= = = = =
A comment on this article from a student seems to give the union viewpoint.


Comments

District 300 Offer to Teachers That Was Rejected by Their Union — 12 Comments

  1. No wonder this was turned down: the raises do not exceed 5% annually.

  2. In this economy, NO ONE should get an automatic pay increase for any reason and the unions proposal for pension increases is outrageous. These teachers are out of line and are ignoring the financial mess of our country.

  3. The Illinois legislature led by a majority of Democrats in both houses and Mr. Quinn sitting in the Governor’s mansion have the full intention to switch the teacher pension responsibilities to the local taxpayers during within the next year. Folks, wait to see what that does to your local real estate tax bill. A 40% increase in your real estate taxes just to pay the new pension portion. When will they realize we are bankrupt and so are many families.

  4. @Fred – your facts are blatantly false.

    First, the proposal is a very slowly phased in *portion* of the pension responsibilities.

    Second, no one will be seeing a 40% increase in property taxes because of the pension shift.

    Hyperbole is fun… but some real facts would be nice.

  5. Okay, @Dave. What could we expect – 5%, 10%, 15% or more?

    Unless districts cut teachers (I would expect them to be the biggest overhead cost) to make up for what Springfield will be sending to local schools, what other mechanism will there be to counteract Springfield’s end game?

  6. How about a proposition that changes the way we fund education?

    Ou r current model is convoluted and unresponsive to changes of population.

    It should not be tied to real estate.

    Eliminate the early retirement option, and cap what administrators can earn for retirement.

    Teachers do not collect social security and contribute more than private employees do to Social security- that being said- it needs to be realistic.

    I say tax their retirement- Keep it away from lawmakers so they don’t plunder it, eliminate all elected officials retirements- use the funds to reduce the pension debacle.

  7. What about doing the right thing for the children?

    Doing the right thing for the children includes giving them a class size where there are not 40 students to 1 teacher.

    Doing the right thing for the children means allowing these class sizes to come down considerably so that every child has a chance to ask questions and receive answers at that very moment in instruction.

    Doing the right thing for the children means the teacher having enough time to reach every single student and make sure they understand the concepts being taught at that very moment in instruction, which would be difficult with 40 students in 1 class, with 1 teacher.

    Doing the right thing for the children means giving them a learning environment that is safe- not crowded with 40 backpacks, 40 pairs of shoes for PE, 40 sets of school supplies.

    Doing the right thing for the children means fighting for better learning environments that they deserve and are not receiving.

  8. @Roy Biggins- I’ll try and find some real numbers for you.

    But first, I’d like you to actually back up your 40% property tax increase assertion.

    Where does that number get pulled from?

    BTW– I find it really ironic and amusing that conservatives are opposed to this pension shift.

    The essence behind it is to control costs by forcing school districts to not only be responsible for salary increases, but also the pension increases that go along with them.

    I’d live to hear a conservative rationale opposing this policy.

    And “our property taxes are going to go up” is not a serious policy rationale.

    The sole reason the legislative republicans are opposed to this is political, and not based on rational conservative policy making.

  9. Sorry- just realized that “Fred” put out the silly 40% number and not Roy.

    But my point and questions still remain.

  10. “End-of-career salary increase.”

    Who ever heard of such a thing?

    What’s the actual case made by the teachers union for this benefit?

  11. Dave, the problem with the pension shift is that it is blantent a cost shift and not true reform.

    The money the state is obligated to put into the pension system will just be used to fund other programs — it will not be returned to the taxpayer.

    Thus, zero net savings — only increases at the property tax level.

    Kind of like the lottery money that was supposed to go to schools — except that the money already going to schools was used for something else.

Add Comment Register



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>