McHenry County Blog

Pam Althoff

End of Session Review

Rewarding Failure

Similarly, the budget continues to fund the failed “Grow Your Own Teachers” program – a well-intentioned effort to encourage parents in low-income areas to return to college and pursue a degree in education. But, as laudable as the goal might be, the record has been one of near-complete failure.

That program has spent $20.2 million since it began in Fiscal Year 2006, but has produced only 64 persons who graduated and went on to teach in Illinois schools. That’s a per teacher cost of $314,000.

For comparison purposes, Yale University currently places the cost of a four-year education, including all tuition and fees, at about $234,000.

Despite the failures, the program was allocated another $1.5 million in taxpayer dollars for the coming year.

Taken from a statement from the Cary Elementary School Board:.  Considering House Speaker Mike Madigan is insistent on transferring teacher pension costs to local taxpayers and this is the last week of the legislative session before extraordinary majorities are required, I thought some might find this of interest.

Newly-elected McHenry County College Board member Chris Jenner has just finished his service on the Cary School Board.

Cary District 26

Statement of Position

Date: December 17, 2012

Topic: Possible Effects Proposed Solutions to the Illinois State Pension Crisis Could Have on
Cary District 26

Introduction: This paper lists the possible effects the Illinois State Pension crisis could have on District 26. It then defines the issue and lists potential and proposed solutions. It finishes by stating District’s 26 position and rationale.

Possible Effects on District 26: Actions taken to address the Illinois state pension crisis could affect any or all District 26 stakeholders. Due to increased pension costs, District 26 may have to:

• Reduce staffing levels resulting in increased class sizes and/or preventing the return of Specials;
•  Propose a property tax hike on Cary homes and businesses;
• Dramatically reduce benefits and/or increase employee retirement contributions for all classes of district employees, making it difficult to attract and retain employees;
• Implement a strategy of RIFing newly hired teachers prior to their obtaining tenure, resulting in a high teacher turnover rate, difficulty in attracting high quality new teachers, and a lack of continuity in classroom instruction;
• Move standard classroom instruction to a model that requires fewer teachers that the district must pay higher TRS contribution rates for, which may include delivering instruction via a virtual platform from third party providers, and which could create legal issues.

Defined: Illinois’ 5 state pension systems are in financial crisis. Illinois recently raised the state personal income tax by 67% and the state corporate income tax by 46%. State revenue is at record highs, yet General State Aid to schools continues to be cut. Illinois is on course to spend more money on the Teacher Retirement System (TRS) than on aid to schools as early as FY2016. Today’s five Illinois state pension systems were created by the 1970 Illinois Constitution. The initial basic parameters for the TRS were:

• 60% of salary at age 60
•  70% of salary at age 66
•  Annual Cost of Living Adjustment (increase), i.e. COLA, of 1.5%, not compounded
•  No sick leave accruals, Early Retirement Option (ERO), or automatic end of career raises

Also inserted into the 1970 Illinois Constitution was the “Pension Protection” clause, Article XIII, Section 5, which states, “… the benefits of [a state pension system] shall not be diminished or impaired.” Cary District 26 believes that the Teachers Retirement System established in 1970 was fair and reasonable. But that the enhanced benefits legislated since then, combined with the “Pension Protection” clause, have created a system that is not fiscally viable, and is in need of radical change. The longer it takes for that change to happen, and the less radical the change, the greater the financial disaster will be, and the worse the effect will be on TRS annuitants and taxpayers alike.

The March 2012 “Financial Condition of the Illinois State Retirement Systems” from the Illinois Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability (http://www.ilga.gov/commission/cgfa2006/Upload/FinCondILStateRetirementSysFY%202011 Mar2012.pdf) shows that taxpayers fund approximately 74% of the money that goes into TRS.

Essentially, 95% of workers in Illinois are funding three quarters of the retirement for 5% of Illinois employees. And most of the 95% have significantly less valuable retirement benefits than the 5% they are funding.

The 1970 parameters of the TRS were noted above. By 2010, the parameters were as follows.
Retirement Age

• Age 62 with 5 years of service credit.
• Age 60 with 10 years of service credit.
• Age 55 with 20 years of service credit (discounted annuity or Early Retirement Option)
• Age 55 with 35 years of service credit.

Retirement Formula

• - Assuming career starts at age 25, and annuitant works every year till age 59, they will receive the maximum annuity of 75% of final average salary.

Annual COLA 3% compounded, up to two years credit for sick day accruals, ERO.

Factors contributing to the financial stress on the TRS include:

• - Teacher salaries, Illinois’ are 3rd highest of the 50 states,
• - Unaffordable pension costs due to increased legislated benefits,
• - Unrealistic Return on Investment (ROI) assumptions,
• - The age at which employees are allowed to retire.

Potential and Proposed Solutions: The TRS provided its summary of proposed solutions and their requirements for meaningful pension reform on its website in mid-2012 (http://trs.illinois.gov/subsections/press/PensionReformProposals.htm). Independent researchers have also proposed solutions and suggested requirements of successful reforms. Proposed solutions and proposed requirements for reform are summarized below.

• Annuitants can have either a COLA, or the health insurance benefit of the Teachers’ Retirement Insurance Program, but not both.
• COLA does not begin until 5 years after retirement.
• Individual asset tracking.
• Force the state to pay its obligation into TRS via court order.
• Phase in shifting the state’s funding responsibility to local districts.
• Have local districts pay all additional costs due to any salary increase, not just increases above 6%.
• Increase employee contributions.
• Reduce or eliminate the COLA, or tie it to the CPI, the Social Security COLA, or a cap.
• Pension income over a certain amount, e.g. $50,000 becomes taxable.
• Subject Illinois TRS pension payments to annuitants living out of state to Illinois income tax.
• Increase annuitant contributions to health insurance costs.
• Start new employees on, and migrate existing employees to, a retirement plan in which benefits are based on contributions instead of a defined benefit plan.

District 26 Position: The Pension Protection Clause of the Illinois Constitution and subsequent legislated pension enhancements have created a situation in which the majority of money in circulation will be required to pay for state employees’ retirement benefits, of which TRS is the vast majority. District 26 believes it is patently unfair for Illinois taxpayers to foot the majority of the cost of a retirement system that for most, is better than their own retirement plan. District 26 also believes it is wrong for government and courts to hold the Pension Protection Clause much stronger than the promise to fund public services such as education.

Based on the current situation, any meaningful reform of state pensions will not align with the Pension Protection Clause. The courts have routinely upheld challenges to the Pension Protection Clause. A constitutional amendment or revision of the constitution at a constitutional convention would be required to soften or repeal the Pension Protection Clause.

District 26 holds that the solution to the pension crisis must include the following, and that no option is
considered “off the table”.
- Teacher retirement benefits should align with retirement benefits of comparable workers in the
private sector.
- While District 26 doesn’t oppose taxpayer contribution to teacher retirement benefits, TRS
annuitant benefits should be based primarily on employee contribution, and not be predefined.
- The solution must be fair to both beneficiaries and taxpayers.
District 26 will therefore advocate for:

• Elimination of the current pension system.
• Distribution (or allocation by accounting) of all existing TRS assets to individual participants, based on individual participant contributions.
• Replacement retirement plans left to local district control.
• Control of the TRS and appointment of the TRS Board by local districts, should TRS be left in place and the pension cost burden be shifted to suburban and downstate districts.
• Creation of a task force of retirement planners with proven track records from private industry to develop retirement plan options that local districts will have the option of implementing.
• Movement to a plan in which retirement benefits are based on contributions made to the plan.

District 26 will also adopt the following budget assumptions:

• Until significant pension reform occurs, District 26 will base its budgets and financial plans on the district contribution to TRS increasing by 1% per year.
• District 26 will consider implementing and budgeting for a staffing strategy which attempts to mitigate the negative financial impact of any pension cost shift.

District 300 teachers show the public that they are striking by carrying picket signs on Randall Road.

Below is a press release from District 300 about the ratification of the contract that came about after a one-day teachers strike.

If you would like to read highlights I picked out of the over 100-page contract, including salary information in dollar amounts amounts,  you can do so here.

If you would like to delve deeper into the 40,000+ word contract, you can find it here.

Board and Teachers’ Union Approve 3‐Year Contract

The Community Unit School District 300 Board of Education (Board) and Local Education Association District 300 (LEAD 300) have approved a 3‐year contract for the time period from July 1, 2012, to June 30, 2015.

The membership of LEAD 300 ratified the contract yesterday (Dec. 19), and the Board voted to approve the contract this evening (Dec. 20).

Contract negotiations focused on several issues that will positively impact the students’ learning environment by lowering class sizes and improving teachers’ working conditions.

The Board and LEAD 300 mutually understand best practices regarding class size and the direct impact these practices have on education.

The Board agrees to make class size a priority and make every effort to keep class sizes at a reasonable number.

To that extent, the Board and LEAD 300 have agreed to form a joint class size committee to monitor class sizes across the district.

Beginning with the 2013‐2014 school year, class sizes will generally be as follows:

The agreement includes a modification of the high school day from eight, 45‐minute periods plus a 30‐minute
lunch, to nine, 45‐minute periods, one of which is a lunch period.

This alteration allows for consistency in both teacher and student schedules, and also makes it possible for students to have greater flexibility in course selection.

Administration and LEAD 300 will create several committees whose representative membership will work
toward creating a collaborative structure for addressing the ongoing needs of District 300 staff and students. The focus of these committees will include:

• A Class Size Committee that will monitor class size and continue to explore options to reduce class sizes in order to create academically sound environments within budgetary and facility constraints
• Collaborative Councils for each instructional level and education services that will help maintain open communication and explore solutions to ongoing issues
• An Insurance Committee that will monitor District‐wide insurance plans and costs in order to ensure fiscal responsibility while maintaining appropriate levels of employee benefits
• A Performance Evaluation Reform Act [PERA] Committee that will create and monitor the procedures for evaluations of certified staff to ensure quality educators for all students in the District
• A joint committee that will help create a more collegial, supportive workplace environment, free from harassment and bullying through policy and procedural changes

The average salary increase for the 3‐year contract will be as follows:

• 2012‐2013: Step plus 1%
• 2013‐2014: Step only
• 2014‐2015: Step plus 1%

“Step” refers to movement on the existing salary schedule and varies depending on employees’ years of service and education, but on average it equals 2%.

Beginning with the 2013‐2014 school year, LEAD 300 retirement benefits will decrease from a 6% adjustment for each of the last four years of service to 3%. The benefit will sunset as of 2015.

Once formatting has been completed for printing purposes, the full contract is anticipated to be available on the Human Resources page of the district website, www.d300.org, by mid‐January 2013.

The instructional day missed on Tuesday, Dec. 4, 2012, due to the strike will be made up at the end of the school year.

This means that unless any emergency/snow days are used this school year, the last day of school will be Wednesday, May 22, 2013.

Today, Carpentersville District 300 teachers were voting on whether to ratify the contract recently negotiated by the LEAD300 union folks and the school board.

You can read the entire contract here, complete with red color to indicate last minute changes.

The most interesting last minute change in the contract is seen below:

High school teachers (excluding PE and music) teaching a sixth (6^th) assignment for the 2012-2013 school year shall receive a one-time, extra pay stipend in the amount of $2,200. High school teachers who work a combination of PE and other subjects will receive a prorated stipend based upon their non-PE assignment. The total amount of stipends paid cannot exceed $90,000.

I’m going to skim through it and see what I find interesting.

• Taxpayers will finance “1.16 Full Time Equivalents of member of the bargaining unit time for the purpose of conducting Association business,” minus the cost of hiring a substitute. (President Release Time)
• Maximum students K-2 in 2013-14 will be 27 (28 enrolled), 3rd to 5th 30 (31 enrolled)
• Maximum students K-2 in 2014-15 will be 26 (27 enrolled), 3rd to 5th 28 (29 enrolled)
• PE and music education teachers’ student contact time will decrease from 1575 to 1500 minutes per week.
• Maximum students for middle school in 2013-14 will be 186, average class of 31, paid overload if more
• Maximum students for middle school in 2013-14 will be average class of 31, paid overload if more
• Middle School teachers shall have no more than 300 minutes of student contact per day
• Based on a nine period day, all general education teachers shall teach no more than five class periods plus one ELT per day or six classes. If more, shall be paid one-fifth of base salary
• High School teachers shall have no more than 285 minutes of student classes plus one ASP may be assigned 155 students; high school teachers teaching six (6) classes may be assigned 186 students. If more, overload pay.
• In the 2014-2015 school year, high school teachers may be assigned a cap of 31 students per class. If more, overload pay.
• High school teachers shall not be required to teach in more than two different subject area departments in any given school semester without additional compensation at the rate of $600.00 per semester.
• Instead of coming to school twenty minutes early and staying twenty minutes after school, the new contract says fifteen minutes and five minutes, respectively181 days of work.
• 181 days of work.
• Divers Ed is limited to three students per vehicle.
• There is whistle blowing protection.
• Twelve sick days credited at the beginning of the year; unused sick days may accumulate without limit.
• Two personal days a year which shall be accumulated as sick days if unused.
• No docking for jury, DCFS, court or administrative hearings or testimony.
• There is a sick leave bank
• Early retirement is possible at age 55 without discount provisions under some circumstances. The District will pay the employer share of the early retirement penalty.
• Up to 40 days of unpaid sick leave can be put into an HRA upon retirement.
• Employees notifing the District that one is retiring four years ahead of time shall receive an increase equal to three percent compounded of the teacher’s TRS creditable earnings for the previous school year for a maximum of four years immediately prior to retirement,plus $500 a year for an HRA account.
• Extra pay amounts and schedule will increase by 2%, 1% and 1% over the three years of the contract.
• A goal has been set that health insurance costs not increase more than 14% a year. If they do, the goal is to cut benefits.
• Taxpayers will pay 70% of the cost of family health insurance.
• 80% of the cost of dental insurance shall be paid by the taxpayers.
• Taxpayer-paid life insurance of $50,000 shall be provided.
• 80% of vision insurance shall be paid by the taxpayers.
• $250 a year will be put in each HRA.
• Mileage will be paid traveling from school to school and for district meetings.
• Members on a step that cannot advance on the salary schedule will receive a 3%, 2% and 3% increase over the three-year contract.
• The District shall pay 5% (5 percentage points of the required 9.5% of payroll) of the TRS payment.
• There’s an extra pay for extra work table.
• The name of the Pom-Pom Squad has been changed to Athletics Dance Team.
• The Instructional Rate is typically paid for work that requires planning, instruction, testing, and/or creation of written documents.
• The Non-Instructional Rate is paid for work that requires physical presence but not instruction.
• There is plenty of language about Special Education.
• A member of a protected group is generally one who is older than 40, disabled, a female or a minority. One may not treat a member of a protected group differently than the rest of the employee group without cause. The burden of proof is on the supervisor.

Salary Schedules

Click to enlarge this salary schedule.

Click to enlarge.

Click to enlarge.

Licensed Practical Nurses get paid $22.60 to $33.40 per hour.

Trying to free up some space to store some more photos, I came across these two bumper stickers.

Although nothing can bring back the children and teachers who were killed in Connecticut, the advice given on the left and right hand side of this Crystal Lake vehicle is probably the best that can be found.

“Pass it on,” says the second bumper sticker.

A comment from a previous article included these emailed suggestions for picket signs:

Hi all:

Teachers on Randall Road near Jacobs High School seemed to have no custom-made signs.

Make signs at warming center on your breaks1. Students First, NOT ADM
2. $ 6 million WASTED on ADM per year
3. Teacher concessions $3.4 million per year
4. Dr. Bregy is a Quack
5. Bregy mismanages D300 $
6. Stevens/Bregy are the problem
7. Less teachers, less coaches, less clubs WHY?
8. Teachers = Strong Students
9. ADM NOT the answer, teachers are the SOLUTION

11. Fire Bregy
12. Teachers for students
13. Support students, NOT ADM
14. Don’t trust Stevens, an insurance salesman
15. Support classroom environment, NOT ADM
16. We are schools, not a corporation
17. ADM does not teach students
18. 29 more ADM, 30 less teachers WHAT?

20. More layers of mangement, WRONG
21. VOTE STEVENS OUT

Greg Fogarty

= = = = =

School Board Recruitment Ad

Note that suggestions 10 and 19 are missing. Are you as curious as I am as to what they were?

You will also note the evidence that the teachers union will be involved in next spring’s school board elections. Not that they have not been before…and not just in District 300.

The problem is that those representing the taxpayer side of the equation don’t have a large enough personal financial interest to run for school board.

But, just in case someone is interested in taking on the challenge, here is the link from the recruitment ad that is running on McHenry County Blog.

And, here it is:

“The District 300 Board of Education and LEAD 300 negotiation teams met from 8 a.m. to approximately 4:45 p.m. today (Monday, Dec. 3), with the assistance of a federal mediator, to discuss outstanding contractual issues. The Board agreed to LEAD’s latest proposal this morning to further reduce class sizes at all grade levels and create class size caps for middle and high school classes.   The LEAD team then increased its salary proposal by returning to an earlier salary request.

“The Board’s proposal equates to $15 million over current spending levels for the life of the 3-year contract.  This includes salaries, benefits, class size reductions, and other collective bargaining matters.  The Board agreed with LEAD’s proposal from this morning regarding class sizes, staff recall rights, bullying policy, and the number of students in lab-based classrooms.

“The Board agreed to LEAD’s proposal from this morning on class sizes and committed to hiring approximately 60 teachers.  There is no agreement on salaries.   The Board’s latest offer will require the District to deficit spend for the next three years.  The Board has agreed to this proposal without knowing the financial impact of potential pension reform and future state funding levels.

“Despite today’s progress in negotiations, LEAD has advised the Board that they will be going on strike tomorrow, Tuesday, December 4.  District 300 schools will be closed tomorrow, and all school-sponsored events and activities are cancelled. The district will enact its Emergency Attendance Center plan tomorrow for students whose parents registered them in advance to participate.”

The Board’s latest offer included:

SALARY SCHEDULE

• 2012-2013: 3% salary increase (including step)
• 2013-2014: 2% salary increase (including step)
• 2014-2015: 3% salary increase (including step)

CLASS SIZE / WORKING CONDITIONS

The Board agreed with LEAD’s proposal from this morning (Dec. 3) to reduce class sizes at all grade levels, and also to establish class caps for the first time at the middle and high school levels to improve teaching conditions.  This would require the District to hire approximately 60 teachers, as follows:

• At the elementary level, add approximately 40 teachers over the next two years:
  • The maximum number of students per class (K-2) will be 27 students in 2013-2014 and 26 students beginning in 2014-2015.
  • The maximum number of students per class (3-5) will be 30 students in 2013-2014 and 29 students beginning in 2014-2015.
• At the middle school level, add 10 teachers in 2013-2014:
  • Cap the number of students per class, excluding PE and music, at 32 students in 2013-2014 and 31 students beginning in 2014-2015. (Currently there are no caps for middle school class sizes.)
  • The additional 10 teachers would help to reduce class sizes.
• At the high school level, add 10 teachers in 2013-2014:
  • Cap the number of students per class, excluding PE and music, at 32 students in 2013-2014 and 31 students beginning in 2014-2015. (Currently there are no caps for high school class sizes.)
  • The 10 additional teachers will be utilized to create a new nine-period schedule, which will not change student course loads but will improve teacher working conditions.  Teachers (except PE and music) will now teach five classes daily plus one period of supervision.

RETIREMENT

The Board modified its Nov. 29 retirement incentive proposal.  The retirement incentive would  expire at the end of this 3-year contract, as follows:

• 2012-2013:  6% increase over Illinois Teachers Retirement System (TRS) creditable earnings for each of the four years prior to retirement
• 2013-2014:  3% increase over TRS creditable earnings for each of the four years prior to retirement
• 2014-2015:  3% increase over TRS creditable earnings for each of the four years prior to retirement

INSURANCE

There would be no change to overall insurance benefits, with the exception that if the annual increase to insurance costs is projected to exceed 14% then the D300 Insurance Committee (which includes LEAD members) will meet to determine changes in the insurance design plan.

If the committee does not agree on design changes, the Board and employees enrolled in the plan will split 50/50 any increase over 14%.

NATIONAL BOARD CERTIFICATION

The Board maintained its Nov. 29 proposal regarding additional compensation to teachers in possession of National Board Certification, as follows. For teachers currently holding National Board Certification, the Board proposed phasing out the extra pay of 7% of their annual salary.

Currently, teachers who earn National Board Certification receive a 7% increase to their annual salary.  The new contract would phase out this benefit for current certificate holders, as follows:

• 2012-2013: extra pay of 6% of annual salary
• 2013-2014: extra pay of 5% of annual salary
• 2014-2015: extra pay of 2.5% of annual salary
• Teachers who achieve National Board Certification after March 1, 2013, will receive an annual stipend of $1,200.
• Any teacher who decides by March 1, 2013, not to continue pursuing this certification would be reimbursed for personal certification-related expenses up to $3,000.

If District 300 teachers decide to gather for a meeting outside of some school as these Huntley District 158 ones did in 2008, at least it won’t be in the biting cold.

Here’s the message from the teachers’ union’s bargaining committee:

“LEAD 300 Members,

“As of 3:15 pm this afternoon, LEAD 300 and the Board’s team have not been able to come to a suitable compromise on both Class Size and Compensation issues. The Board’s team is also unwilling to entertain any alternatives or creative methods to compensate members for overload and/or salary.

“95% of the members at our meeting told us that they would not accept the Board’s proposal as presented. And unfortunately we have not made enough movement from that proposal. At this point, their attorney has left for the evening and is not able to come back until 8:00pm. She has made it clear that even if she does return, we should not expect to see any more movement this evening.

“We must, therefore, take the next step in this incredibly difficult process. As of tomorrow morning, LEAD 300 members are on Strike.

“Members will be contacted by their building strike captains with further instructions.

“Together, in unity, we must take this ultimate step. We must finish this contract negotiation.

“The LEAD 300 Bargaining Team”

You can read a good part of the Administration’s “Final Offer” here.

Here is District 300′s response:

Schools closed Tuesday, Dec. 4; Teachers Union will strike

The following voice mail message was sent by the Board of Education to District 300 parents and staff members at 5:25 p.m. this evening (Monday, Dec. 3, 2012):

Joe Stevens

“Hello, this is Joe Stevens, member of the District 300 Board of Education and District spokesperson regarding the ongoing negotiations between the Teachers Union, LEAD 300, and the Board of Education.

“Board of Education and LEAD 300 negotiation teams have been meeting since 8 a.m. this morning with the assistance of a federal mediator to discuss outstanding contractual issues.

“After the Board agreed to LEAD’s latest proposal to further reduce class sizes at all grade levels and create class size caps for middle and high school classes, the LEAD team increased its salary proposal by returning to an earlier salary request.

“At this point, the Board has met LEAD’s expectations regarding class sizes, but we have not reached agreement on salaries.

“The LEAD team has advised the Board that they will be going on strike tomorrow, Tuesday, December 4.

“D300 schools will be closed tomorrow, and all school-sponsored events and activities are cancelled.

“The district will enact its plan tomorrow for Emergency Attendance Centers for students who registered in advance to participate. For more information about today’s collective bargaining efforts, please visit d300.org later this evening.”

Here’s the first twelve pages of the District 300 School Board’s Final Office to it teachers union, called LEAD300.   If you want to read the whole 69-page document, here it is:

Introduction and Summary of Final Offer

The Board of Education of Community Unit School District 300 began bargaining with the Local Education Association of District 300 (LEAD 300) in January 2012. In July, the parties jointly requested mediation, and after eleven mediation sessions, on Monday, November 5, LEAD 300 declared impasse.

By law, each party is required to submit their final offers to each other, the mediator and the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board within seven days of a declaration of impasse. Accordingly, the Board is submitting this final offer.

As has been stated by the President of the Board of Education, Anne Miller, “The Board is dedicated to negotiating a contract that is good for students, fair for teachers and fiscally responsible to our community. It is our sincere hope that a strike will be averted. We are fortunate to have a caring, competent and highly qualified staff.”

During the negotiations, LEAD 300 has emphasized that its primary goals are class size and the work environment. The Board listened and responded. For the first time, the Board is committed to including class size limits in its collective bargaining agreement. The Board has committed to lowering class sizes at the elementary schools and to maintaining those lower class sizes.

The Board has also made numerous commitments to address other work environment issues that were raised during negotiations, including flexibility and control over plan time and arrival and departure times. LEAD 300 asked for a bullying policy, and the Board agreed that the two sides should jointly draft one for adoption by the Board. Special Education teachers asked for relief from their ever-increasing paperwork and IEP administration requirements, and the Board responded with five additional compliance assurance days.

LEAD 300 also asked, and the Board agreed, to transition the high schools to a 9-period day, which yields benefits for staff, students and administration. The 9-period day mimics the structure of the current 8- period day by continuing to have 45 minute academic instructional periods of time, something which currently fits all users’ needs. The difference in the 9-period day is that the lunch period for students and staff is extended from 30 minutes to 45 minutes.

Students benefit from this change in that they can utilize the additional time to complete school work.

Staff benefits in the new configuration because more high school teachers have a five class work load accompanied with an assigned supervision.

Central to every negotiation are the economic proposals– salaries and benefits. Given today’s economic environment, the Board has offered a strong salary and benefit package to its employees with the knowledge that the fiscal strength of the District is in the best interests of its students, its employees and its taxpayers.

The Board has asked LEAD 300 to phase out end-of-career salary increases over the life of this contract. It is common knowledge that pension reform is coming to Illinois, and school districts will presumably bear at least some of the cost of that reform. Neither the District nor the State can afford to continue the traditional end-of-career salary and pension enhancements.

The Board’s final offer is summarized in the following pages. There are also other outstanding issues that remain between the parties. A complete copy of the Board’s final offer is attached to this document.

* The union position represented references the most recent LEAD 300 position and does not reflect any changes LEAD 300 may be contemplating for its final offer.

General Background Information

The Board’s primary goals for a new contract are:

• Act in a fiscally responsible manner by ensuring that the District’s limited resources are used wisely, that the District’s expenditures do not exceed its revenues, and that taxpayers are not unduly burdened; and
• Attract and retain a quality teaching staff; and
• Provide staff with a fair and competitive salary and benefits package; and
• Provide staff with the support and resources necessary to ensure a positive workplace climate and a successful learning environment; and
• Provide current and future students with a quality education and learning environment by carefully allocating the District’s limited resources in order to avoid reductions in staff, address large class sizes, and avert programmatic cuts.

Past Negotiations

As illustrated in the chart below, the District’s salary increases have averaged 3.2% over the last five years. The average salary increase includes annual step increases, a salary increase based on the length of time a teacher has been employed in the district. The average salary increase does not include annual lane movement increases, a salary increase based on teachers obtaining advanced degrees.
To remain financially stable, it is imperative that the District’s expenditure increases are in alignment with the District’s revenue increases. Increases to property tax revenue, the District’s largest revenue source, are tied to the Consumer Price Index (CPI). For the last five years, the Board’s wage and benefit package for teachers has exceeded the average 2.2% CPI for this same period.

The Board’s proposed contract provides an average salary increase of 2.4% per year for the 2012-2015 3-year contract. Since the inception of the tax cap, CPI has averaged 2.5%. The Board believes that the current proposed contract is fair and fiscally responsible.

* The union position represented references the most recent LEAD 300 position and does not reflect any changes LEAD 300 may be contemplating for its final offer.

Comparability Data

The Board believes that teacher compensation for District 300 is competitive with surrounding Kane and McHenry County unit school districts. The chart below illustrates how District 300 beginning and highest teachers’ salaries compare among the 14 unit school districts in Kane and McHenry counties on three major benchmarks.
The 14 unit school districts used for this comparison are

• Alden Hebron SD 19,
• Harvard CUSD 50,
• Johnsburg CUSD 12,
• Kaneland CUSD 302,
• Huntley CUSD 158,
• Aurora East USD 131,
• Elgin SD U-46,
• Central CUSD 301,
• Batavia USD 101,
• Geneva CUSD 304,
• Woodstock CUSD 200,
• St. Charles CUSD 303,
• Aurora West USD 129 and
• Carpentersville CUSD 300.

Staff Retention

The Board is committed to attracting and retaining high quality teachers. The Board believes that the
District’s entry level salary amount and award-winning Induction and Mentoring program for novice
teachers are two factors that address this commitment. The Board’s intention is to bargain a contract
providing for a stable financial environment that will continue to positively impact the retention and
attraction of quality teaching staff. Data for the last three school years indicates an average teacher
retention rate of approximately 98%.

* The union position represented references the most recent LEAD 300 position and does not reflect any changes LEAD 300 may be contemplating for its final offer.

Proposals with Financial Impact

SALARY SCHEDULE

Board Salary Schedule Proposal Details

Teachers will be paid according to the following:

2012-2013: Teachers will advance one step on the salary schedule. In addition, the salary schedule will be increased by .75%. Teachers with a Master’s or Doctorate degree on Step 25 of the salary schedule and non-certified nurses will receive an increase of 2.75% in 2012-2013.

2013-2014: Teachers will advance one step on the salary schedule. Teachers with a Master’s or Doctorate degree on Step 25 of the salary schedule and non-certified nurses will receive an increase of 2.00%.

2014-2015: Teachers will advance one step on the salary schedule. In addition, the salary schedule will be increased by .50%. Teachers with a Master’s or Doctorate degree on Step 25 of the salary schedule and non-certified nurses will receive an increase of 2.50%.

* The union position represented references the most recent LEAD 300 position and does not reflect any changes LEAD 300 may be contemplating for its final offer.

The salary schedule for the duration of the contract would be as follows:
* The union position represented references the most recent LEAD 300 position and does not reflect any changes LEAD 300 may be contemplating for its final offer.

* The union position represented references the most recent LEAD 300 position and does not reflect any changes LEAD 300 may be contemplating for its final offer.

Rationale for Board Salary Proposal

The Board is dedicated to negotiating a contract that is good for students, fair for teachers and fiscally responsible to our community. Given today’s economic environment, the Board has offered a strong salary and benefit package to its employees with the knowledge that the fiscal strength of the District is in the best interests of its students, its employees and its taxpayers. The District’s projections indicate that to provide salary increases greater than what is currently proposed will either jeopardize the District’s educational program or place an undue burden on our taxpayers during these difficult
economic times. While the Board is willing to provide increases commensurate with the certified LEAD members’ increases to non-certified nurses, they do not agree with placing the non-certified nurses on a salary schedule.

Board Salary Cost Summary

The Board’s proposed total salary costs and annual salary increases without retirees are as follows:

* The union position represented references the most recent LEAD 300 position and does not reflect any changes LEAD 300 may be contemplating for its final offer.

RETIREMENT

Rationale for Board Retirement Proposal

It is widely reported 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. 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 a final opportunity to take advantage of end of career salary increases.

Board Retirement Proposal Cost Summary

For the 2012-2013 school year, the salary cost for the 121 staff members currently on the retirement track is $10,627,043. The salary cost for these staff member would be $10,226,023 without the current retirement incentive for an increase of $401,021. The compounding effect of the current retirement benefit is not reflected in this number.

In the collective bargaining agreement that expired on July 1, teachers who submitted a notice of retirement were given a 6% salary increase over their prior year’s creditable earnings for up to four years prior to retirement.

Board:

The Board is also proposing that if retirement legislation is enacted resulting in additional costs to the District, then the parties may reopen and renegotiate this provision. Additionally, the Board is proposing that the retirement incentive ends with this agreement, so after the 2014-2015 school year, future retirees will not receive an end-of-career salary increase. Lastly, the proposal eliminates post-retirement HRA contributions for unused sick leave not reported to the Teachers’ Retirement System.

LEAD 300*:

The Board’s proposal is designed to reduce the overall costs of this benefit, but we are unable to determine the projected future cost savings at this time because the District does not know the number of teachers that will elect to retire under the Board’s proposed plan.

*The union position represented references the most recent LEAD 300 position and does not reflect any changes LEAD 300 may be contemplating for its final offer.

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.