Over the years there has been a considerable amount of confusion and criticism regarding teacher salaries and raises. Certain critics of public education, typified by the Champion.org website who, until recently, incorrectly claimed large salary increases (as a result of their faulty analyses) caused many to feel that teachers had received overly generous increases.
The following is an in-depth examination of recent District 203 teachers annual salary increases and of the method that is used to interpret them. We thank Dave Zager, Asst. Superintendent of Finance for District 203, for providing much of the information.
| 2006-2007 | 2007-2008 | 2008-2009 | 2009-2010 | 2007-2010 Average | 1998-2008 ISBE Average |
1999-2008 ECI Average |
|
| Total average annual increase to compensation for an incumbent teacher between each consecutive year (1.) | 6.40% | 6.28% | 4.76% | 4.82% | 5.57% | ||
Savings due to lower salaries of teachers replacing those that have retired or terminated (2.) |
-2.30% | -2.15% | -1.13% | -2.20% | -1.86% | ||
| Net average annual increase in salary cost incurred by the district and paid by the taxpayer (3.) | 4.10% | 4.13% | 3.63% | 2.62% | 3.62% | 3.54% | 3.20% |
(1) Salary increases for teachers between each year. This amount includes all the following:
Base salary increase: For the years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, there is a 2% increase in the schedule. For the contract years 2005-2006 through 2007-2008, the amount was 3.3%. You can reasonably look at base salary increases as cost of living increases.
Step and Lane increases: This is a state wide practice, created to provide a framework for salary increases above the starting salary adjusted for inflation.
Step Increases are based on years of service. The average step increase for the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 contract years is 1.8%. A Lane Increase is compensation based on advanced educational attainment (Masters and Doctorates). Historically the combination of Step and Lane increases have averaged 2.8%. For the most recent contract (for years 2008-09 and 2009-10), the 1.8% Step increase and an estimated .74% for the Lane increases, equals 2.54%. It is important to note that teachers reach the end of the salary schedule after 23 years and then, historically, only receive any base salary increases after that. The 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 contract deviated from this as the salary increase for teachers after 23 years, with a Masters or above, was pegged to inflation, i.e. the 2006 CPI rate of 2.4% for the 2008-2009 year and the 2007 CPI of 4.1% for the 2009-2010 contract.
Retirement incentives: This consists of additional compensation in the last one to four years of employment not to exceed a 6% salary increase. Typically benefits for this category are lower than 6% since any salary increase a teacher is otherwise entitled must be netted against this benefit. For the most recent contract (for years 2008-09 and 2009-10), this adds .24% to the total increase. To be eligible, the teacher must have had at least 15 years continuous employment with the District prior to retirement and give early notice. Eligibility is based on making early application. For example, a teacher had to give the district notice by May 1, 2008 that they were retiring June 30, 2012. They then would get 2 years of 6% increases (2008-09 and 2009-10). The latter two years of their retirement are not covered by the current agreement (through 2009-10), so they are in limbo for the last two years of employment (depending on negotiations, it is possible for them to get no increase at all the last two years if the salary schedule hadn’t “caught up” to their last salary).
Changes: (both increases or decreases from the prior year) due to stipends (extra duty such as coaching, student activities, and other services).
(2) This amount reflects the (net) lower salary costs of less experienced teachers replacing more experienced (and thus more highly paid) teachers who have left. The majority of the teachers who leave have over 25 years of work experience. They are traditionally replaced with teachers with less experience and a correspondingly lower salary. While the savings illustrated is typical, and occurs whenever there is any turnover, it has increased slightly due the decline in average tenure from 15.8 to 13.0 in the past 10 years.
(3) Net annual change in compensation year over year. This is the actual increase that the taxpayer pays. Calculated by Dave Zager - not adjusted for very minor variances in staffing over the three years listed.
1998-2008 ISBE net annual change in compensation. Calculated using the ISBE average salary amounts for D203 over 11 years. Per ISBE requirements, the figure (average teacher salary) is computed by the total compensation divided by the number of teachers on a Full Time Equivalent basis. The FTE is arrived at by dividing the days worked by a teacher by the contract days per year and multiplying that by the Percent of Full day the teacher works. So a teacher starting at semester (1/2 of the year) is counted as a .5 FTE. A teacher that works ½ day each day is counted as .5 FTE. The District sends in raw data on the annual Teacher Retirement System Report. The ISBE analyzes the data, and while Dave Zager has not verified the result, it is very close (within a few tenths) to the districts audited salary growth percentage.
1999-2008 Employment Cost Index (ECI). This number is based on then average cost (on an hourly basis) of current employees (in both the private sector and govt. jobs) surveyed on a quarterly basis by the Department of labor. The wages only ECI has increased by 3.2% annually in the last ten years. The wages and benefits ECI has increased by 3.6% in the same time frame. The ECI is a respected index that is used by both the Federal Reserve to set monetary policy, and private industry where it is used as a tool to evaluate an organizations compensation relative to their industry.
Salary Questions & Answers:
Q. When you look at the salary schedule why does it look like teachers are getting larger than the 1.8% increase you report for step changes in the current contract?
A. The actual teachers are on different places on the scale. A fair number (about 22%) of teachers are at the last step in the schedule – they do not get any step increase at all. When we look at the “scatter gram” (a chart that shows the placement of all the teachers on the salary scale), when you move everyone up on the scale one year, the average increase from this change is 1.8%. The people at the end of the scale don’t move at all (so 22% of our staff see a 0% increase from the step movement). So, those that DO get a step increase average more than 1.8% - but the increase averaged over the whole staff is 1.8%.
Q. Please discuss the effects of teacher attrition on the total compensation the District pays.
A. On an ongoing basis, year after year, teachers retire and are replaced by new teachers at a lower cost. This attrition rate is generally about 2% to 2.5% of the total teacher work force. The District, on average, anticipates25 retirements, but 40 teachers retired at June 30, 2009. Anytime you replace experienced teachers with new younger staff it will reduce salaries.
Q. "The Champion.org” website has previously claimed that teachers received overly large annual increases. Is this true?
A. No, not as reported by the “Champion” in their teacher salary study for 1999 through 2005. A closer look at the listing for District 203 shows that, at best, only 80% of D203 teachers/principals/administrators are on the list. It also shows many receiving increases of 10%, 20%, 50%, even 200%. There are a number of reasons for this, for example, some teachers took an unpaid maternity leave in the base year, and then came back for the following full year, and the Champion.org incorrectly counted the difference in salary as an increase. Some teachers were hired at half time in their first year and became full time in the next, all were incorrectly counted as receiving large increases by the Champion.org. Some teachers, or administrators, started after the beginning of the school year and then worked the entire next academic year–and again, all incorrectly counted as an increase by the Champion.org. Other teachers became a coach or taught extra classes– all were counted as a salary increase.
In fact, given these circumstances, one would expect there to be teachers who show decreases in their pay as they worked a full year in the base year and only a part of the next year due to maternity leave or maybe were a coach in the base year and gave up the position the next. However, there were no such decreases reported by the Champion.org; they only reported increases–not decreases–in the overall payroll. Anyone with a decrease in pay was excluded from their data!
The end result of inaccurately reporting only increases without regard for time worked, extra days worked, extra jobs, or full school year versus partial school year worked, as well as not illustrating the savings due to turnover, is that in the same year the Champion.org reported an 8.3% average increase in pay for teachers while the correct and complete accounting of the Illinois State Board of Education shows that average increase in teachers salaries was 3.7% for Naperville District 203 schools.
