McHenry County Blog

Governor Pat Quinn thinks that consolidating schools will save big money because fewer administrators would be required.

Reading the Daily Herald article, I notice that no mention is made of equalizing up elementary school teacher salaries to the level paid by the overlying high school districts.

All Quinn mentions is saving $100 million in administrative costs. That’s well under one-half of one percentage of what’s spent on schools in Illinois.

Pretty much peanuts, in other words.

The Northwest Herald has bought into the argument, also incorrectly assume that consolidating hundreds of school districts in Illinois will save big money.

“… there’s no good reason why towns such as Cary, Crystal Lake and McHenry should have separate elementary and high school districts.”

That’s what the Northwest Herald wrote Thursday.  (Look quickly.  Soon you will have to pay to see it.)

Might I suggest that a salary comparison be made?

Look what took me less than ten minutes to find.

High school salaries in District 155 are higher than those in Crystal Lake Grade School District 47, Cary Grade School District 26 and Prairie Grade School District 46.

Let me list them:

• Crystal Lake District 155 – $91,573 (412 teachers)
• Cary District 26 – $68,489 (198 teachers)
• Fox River Grove 3 – $60,507 (41 teachers)
• Prairie Grove District 46 – $59,840 (68 teachers)
• Crystal Lake District 47 – $57,788 (564 teachers)

The weighted average of grade school teachers in the three districts is $60,505.

The difference between the average weighted elementary school salary and the District 155 High School teacher’s average salary of $91,573 is $31,066.

Let’s do some multiplication.

First, let’s estimate. You know, what grade school students are taught to do.

What’s $31,000 times 900?

Hey, that’s over $25 million.

The exact figure is $27,058,486 my calculator says and it didn’t take tens of thousands of dollars paid to some Northern Illinois professors to figure that out.

So, let’s be rational and assume no teacher would be willing to take a pay cut and all grade school teachers would want to be put on the same salary schedule now enjoyed by area high school teachers.

Looking at these figures, it is hard to believe they would not expect an average raise of $31,000 if consolidation were to occur.

Now, I’ll admit that I have not made detailed comparisons to take into account the longevity bonus that high and grade school teachers get.

Maybe after making such adjustments the raise for unifying the pay schedules wouldn’t average over $31,000 a grade school teacher.

Pick your number and multiply it by 871.

Then, compare that mid-$20-some million number with the $100 million statewide savings that Quinn projects in savings from unneeded administrators.

Anyone think the savings by getting rid of redundant administrators within the Crystal Lake-Cary-Fox River Grove-Prairie Grove area would approach $25 million?

So why is the Governor proposing something that is going to cost every part of the state with both high and grade school districts big money?

Would I be being too cynical to suggest that Quinn may be trying to reward Illinois Education Association members who supported his re-election?

Would anyone think Illinois union leaders would let teachers in the same unified district be on two different pay scales?

The IEA Uniserve Directors would be knocking at school administrators’ doors the day after a merger.  Maybe before.

Proof is how teacher unions won’t allow a consolidated school district to use even two different pay scales.

The elementary physical education teacher that teaches kindergarten P.E. classes is on the same pay scale as the high school math and science teachers.

Only in editorial and Quinn Fantasy Land unions would be helping to save money.

The result would be teachers hearing the sound of “Ca Ching!”

Years later you would likely read editors bemoaning how this couldn’t have been foreseen.

But that’s what collective bargaining will bring if all school districts are shoved into the unit district mold.

It will be the result of collective bargaining. You know, what the fight in Madison, Wisconsin, is all about.

If you are one of those skeptical individuals who think teachers’ union leaders are sometimes less than truthful, here’s evidence to put your mind at ease.

All you have to do is read page 24 of the final signed Huntley teachers contract and compare it to the newsletter the IEA Region 54 sent to its teacher union members.

Agreement #1
The BOE and HEA will form a joint committee to review compensation for certified staff members include:

Current salary schedule – the committee will make recommendations to the Board of Education for alternative schedules.

Retirement compensations – the committee will recommend a salary structure for all retiring staff members (emphasis added).

Here’s what the recent IEA newsletter says about the settlement of the Huntley teachers contract:

“A Four Years at 6% agreement was worked out for retirees.  A joint committee will negotiate the language.  The Board will accept letters of Intent this spring and implement the 6% increases beginning in the 2009 school year.”

But there is no agreement in the Huntley contract to give retirees 6% raises.

There also is no implementation agreed upon. A 2009 implementation date is sheer fantasy written by the IEA as if it were true.

Teachers in other McHenry County school districts are apparently not supposed to find this out.

How would they find out?

They are supposed to be impressed with how great a job their IEA professional negotiators did in Huntley.

It’s easy to impress someone if you make up accomplishments.

Who’s going to be the wiser?

Why would teachers reading their union newsletter mistrust its author?

But, in Huntley’s case, what they wrote was fiction, rather than non-fiction.

What’s the chance of the IEA leaders ever getting caught and exposed in the media?

None because newspapers don’t assign reporters to cover a “teacher union beat.”

Local papers don’t even cover unions when they are sued in federal court.

It’s internal union business.

And, besides, with beats at papers like the Northwest Herald having been doubled, who has the time?

Huntley’s teachers going on strike certainly is the public’s business.

But some insight into how the IEA manipulates its teachers into thinking teachers in another district are specifically getting more, when it isn’t true, may be relevant and deserving of public scrutiny.

IEA Uniserve Director Susan Goudreau’s name is on the newsletter’s masthead. Goudreau was on the Huntley teachers’ negotiating team. Surely she knows what is in and not in the agreement.

Another interesting excerpt:

“The bargaining team is proud of the contract negotiated.”

This is especially interesting seeing how for a month after the teachers ratified the contract, the Huntley co-presidents wanted to renegotiate what they agreed to in writing.

Apparently union leaders can be “proud” and at the same time clamor for a contract “do over.”

The Board of Education got minimum monthly payments for both medical and dental insurance into the new contract, when there had been none. They add up to $240 per year. It’s safe to say that some teachers are very unhappy about that.

Don’t expect news of this to be in any IEA newsletter anytime soon, but there is no doubt the single teachers know.

Maybe bragging about something they didn’t get is common in teacher union newsletters.

Maybe the “Fair” in the IEA’s slogan of Fair, Competitive and Comparable means it’s fair for IEA leaders to not tell the truth to both the public and even its own teachers.

Apparently when teacher union leaders proclaim themselves “professionals” and “educators,” telling the truth isn’t part of their “professional” standard.

Maybe “educating” teachers with false information is par for the course.

If you are one of those skeptical individuals who think teachers’ union leaders are sometimes less than truthful, here’s evidence to put your mind at ease.

All you have to do is read page 24 of the final signed Huntley teachers contract and compare it to the newsletter the IEA Region 54 sent to its teacher union members.

Agreement #1
The BOE and HEA will form a joint committee to review compensation for certified staff members include:

Current salary schedule – the committee will make recommendations to the Board of Education for alternative schedules.

Retirement compensations – the committee will recommend a salary structure for all retiring staff members (emphasis added).

Here’s what the recent IEA newsletter says about the settlement of the Huntley teachers contract:

“A Four Years at 6% agreement was worked out for retirees.  A joint committee will negotiate the language.  The Board will accept letters of Intent this spring and implement the 6% increases beginning in the 2009 school year.”

But there is no agreement in the Huntley contract to give retirees 6% raises.

There also is no implementation agreed upon. A 2009 implementation date is sheer fantasy written by the IEA as if it were true.

Teachers in other McHenry County school districts are apparently not supposed to find this out.

How would they find out?

They are supposed to be impressed with how great a job their IEA professional negotiators did in Huntley.

It’s easy to impress someone if you make up accomplishments.

Who’s going to be the wiser?

Why would teachers reading their union newsletter mistrust its author?

But, in Huntley’s case, what they wrote was fiction, rather than non-fiction.

What’s the chance of the IEA leaders ever getting caught and exposed in the media?

None because newspapers don’t assign reporters to cover a “teacher union beat.”

Local papers don’t even cover unions when they are sued in federal court.

It’s internal union business.

And, besides, with beats at papers like the Northwest Herald having been doubled, who has the time?

Huntley’s teachers going on strike certainly is the public’s business.

But some insight into how the IEA manipulates its teachers into thinking teachers in another district are specifically getting more, when it isn’t true, may be relevant and deserving of public scrutiny.

IEA Uniserve Director Susan Goudreau’s name is on the newsletter’s masthead. Goudreau was on the Huntley teachers’ negotiating team. Surely she knows what is in and not in the agreement.

Another interesting excerpt:

“The bargaining team is proud of the contract negotiated.”

This is especially interesting seeing how for a month after the teachers ratified the contract, the Huntley co-presidents wanted to renegotiate what they agreed to in writing.

Apparently union leaders can be “proud” and at the same time clamor for a contract “do over.”

The Board of Education got minimum monthly payments for both medical and dental insurance into the new contract, when there had been none. They add up to $240 per year. It’s safe to say that some teachers are very unhappy about that.

Don’t expect news of this to be in any IEA newsletter anytime soon, but there is no doubt the single teachers know.

Maybe bragging about something they didn’t get is common in teacher union newsletters.

Maybe the “Fair” in the IEA’s slogan of Fair, Competitive and Comparable means it’s fair for IEA leaders to not tell the truth to both the public and even its own teachers.

Apparently when teacher union leaders proclaim themselves “professionals” and “educators,” telling the truth isn’t part of their “professional” standard.

Maybe “educating” teachers with false information is par for the course.