To: TB, Joe, Dan D., TH, Pi, -1, Psyche, all the Anonymous posters, etc.

We all take good advantage of the SUN's blog to let off steam, wow each other with our understanding of world events, piss each other off, take jabs at Councilmen and others, etc. Well, I had a great experience today that I want to share and I truly hope all (or some!) of you will gain the same experience I did! And, drum roll please ----- it's tax deductible!!!

I received by best Christmas gift today, and I started out thinking I was the one giving a gift!

I went down to the Fish & Loaves site (556 W. Fifth Ave, behind NNHS) to give them a donation of cash for food. I had never been there before, and I was very impressed by the set-up, the site, but moreso by the obvious need for their services.

The place was rocking with needy clients there to accept food for their families. It was so crowded that one needed numbers (like the post office) to get into a queue.

It is clear that Fish & Loaves is very needed in our area AND is doing a yeoman's job of getting product to the needy among our neighbors here in Naperville and the area.

Kudos to them, and I HIGHLY encourage everyone out there to go down to their site (556 West Fifth) and donate some cash ---- even if its just $20. Remember! They can get $10 worth of product for each $1 you donate!

This was definitley one gift that truly made me feel great!

Feb, 2007 - Apple Inc. CEO Steve Jobs laid into teachers unions Friday at a Texas education reform conference, an Austin, Texas, newspaper reported, saying they're "what's wrong with our schools."

During a joint appearance with Michael Dell that was sponsored by the Texas Public Education Reform Foundation, Jobs took on the unions by first comparing schools to small businesses, and school principals to CEOs. He then asked rhetorically: "What kind of person could you get to run a small business if you told them that when they came in, they couldn't get rid of people that they thought weren't any good? Not really great ones, because if you're really smart, you go, 'I can't win.' "

He went on to say that "what is wrong with our schools in this nation is that they have become unionized in the worst possible way. This unionization and lifetime employment of K-12 teachers is off-the-charts crazy."

I don't have access to the Herald's actual work, but I DO have a decent understanding of numbers and math.

Based on that, the last comment by TH is not veery probable in terms of accuracy. I believe he read it, but I do not believe the work of the Herald.

Using common sense, I feel pretty secure stating that if 203 started out below the state average in spending per student, then ended up over the state average in spending per student, then their spending rate HAD TO increase at a rate faster than the state average!

I have a challenge for Pi, TH, -1, Dan D, etc:

State outright on this thread YOUR guess as to what the raise percentage will be in the upcoming contract between 203 & the union.

I think it will end up being complex (and thus, by definition, shady).

I'll go first:
It will be a three year contract broken up into three parts:
One year raise percentages at close to zero, followed by a second year at 3.95%, and a third year at 4.95%. It will also either re-affirm the end-of-career scam at 6% or bump it up to 12%.

JOMO

e^(i*pi)

Thank you.

I take your point as to OPS. It’s leading me to do something I’ve been wanting to do, namely, find all the feeder elementary SD’s for the top 7 HSD’s (high school districts), as opposed to just using 1. I’ll do a weighted average for the ISAT scores, compare that to 203’s and dump the OPS all-together.

For anonymous,

Too close to Christmas to spend too much time, and it depends what you are really asking, but the answer to #2 is contained in my Overview of Teacher Salary Increases for Fiscal Years 2007-2010

The answer is detailed in the overview and it averages 5.77% for the years 2007-2010. Going back to 2000 that increases to about 6%. This from the District, these are not my calculations.

The other statistic that’s very pertinent is the actual cost to all of us for those 5.77% raises. After you factor in turnover, the net cost for the increase in wages is in the 3.6%-3.5% range. I think this is what you are talking about in #1. However,If you mean by “average increase in total dollars spent… “ meaning the total payroll , then that is affected by not only by this net salary increase, but any additional staff hired, or conversely, by any net reduction in staff (as happened this year). I don’t have that percentage. Easy enough to get from the financials posted on the website.

The past is not prologue. We will not see these kind of raises in the next contract due to the zero inflation environment.

I don’t have the time to find the cite but 203 has always done well controlling costs. The extensive Daily Herald financial analysis, shows that 203, after adjusting for enrollment gains, total costs (not just salaries) increased at a lower rate over the last 10 years than the state average This based on total revenue, not OEPP.

You might find this of interest What is the Best Educational Value in Chicagoland

Hope this helps.

Feliz Navidad everyone

Thom Higgins
QE203.org

The opinions on raises that are offered by TH are subjective ones which he tries to dress-up as objective.

How? He uses the answer from a different question to deliberately try to confuse everyone!

TH uses the answer from question #1: "What has been the average increase in total dollars spent in 203 on salaries"

Sadly, it is question #2 which we are all asking/answering: "What is the average raise given to a teacher, ON AVERAGE, in 203"

His use of the answer for question 1 and applying it to question #2 is dishonest.

The District HAS done a very good job lately (Hmmmm, like since the election 2 years ago when they had the bejeebers scared out of them!) of actually controlling expenses in total (including, to a lesser extenet, salaries).

However, over the past 15 years (including the last 2 years) the District has done a poor job of controlling individual average raises. The result is that at some point we WILL take a big hit in spending as the imbedded base of established old-timer teachers will eventually all be retired.

I will probably make 2 more posts on this subject unless there are posts which need responding. This is the first.

Mr. Higgins, I apologize if I have been uncivil. Please read my reasons. That is not an excuse, but it is a request. Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, or Joyous whatever else you may be celebrating. Enjoy your family and friends. May the New Year bring you and your family happiness in all of its manifestations.

I will be privately sending Mr. Higgins an analysis of is latest postings on qe203.org . There are some mathematical missteps which I will encourage him to correct. I will not list those here unless they are not appropriately corrected. I have given him constructive criticism in the past, and I will continue to do so. The files need a touch of editing. My suggestions do not have anything to do with message but are about fairness and context.

Finally I will be posting some geeky mathematical mumbo jumbo here as a reference. Warning: it will include the arithmetic/geometric mean inequality and other thoughts on averages (like how averaging multiple year-to-year raises actually overstates the effective yearly raises over time.) . I like to post the idea when it is in my head, and they are fresh now. I will try to have a warning above the post.

e^(i*pi)

I agree with annonymous December 19, 2009 9:49 PM

There are some fascinating comments on this blog, too bad that these biting peronal attacks continue by you know who. I wonder why?

Dan D. quote of David Zager, "The labor negotiations in 2009-2010 will have a significant bearing on future budgets." is the most important.

And I am surprised by Dan D. approach and how close it is to Thom's when he finally responded six days later. Thom had said that Dan and his Taxpayers Ticket cronies were going to solve this problem by firing all of the teachers. What happened to that position Dan?

But Thom Higgins seems to always show up right after Dan comments and attempts to discredit him in any way. Maybe that is why I have the wrong opinion of Dan.

And I really don't think that we need to waste Dave Zager's time trying to vindicate Thom. But I am glad that Thom is drawing attention to this matter since it is so important.

Thom's last post is a zinger. He claims that -1, Dan D. and others are using a "small group of teachers" to bias their claim. How untrue. I also looked at the numbers. They are using the people that worked full time year over year to get an average raise. Maybe they should have adjusted the salaries of those people instead, but I can see where that would require two assumptions.

Thom is calculating an entirely different number, the overall salary increase for a year. The only time these numbers would be the same is if there was zero turnover (which is possible).

But now I am more confused. The Taxpayer Ticket said the average raise was 7 to 9% from 1999 to 2006 and really were never challenged by anyone. Now almost four years later, Higgins first tells us it was 7%. Now he is saying 6%. Does he have the numbers mixed up again? And then he said he was going to study this for another six months.

This is not the way I do analysis.

Nice Job!

Mr. Higgins gives a perfect example of why I get frustrated. He is unable to place anything into context and makes misstatements about what I am showing. He turns a simple display about the raises the Specific Union Negotiating Team Members into something else. I even address the exact issues (end of lane, more schooling, extra duties) in my post.

I don't disagree with the 5.77% number for 2007-2010. The number is the number.

Notice his attempt to attach me to the 7%-9% average raise group. I have shown several year periods where the 7% figure is correct, but I have clearly denounced the 9% as wrong.

I apologize. I should have written Zowie with a link. Or no 6-7%raises or that I am sure Mr. Higgins has zero concerns about his correctness. In his Zowie comments he uses a specific teacher. Clearly there have been many specific teachers including 4 from the NUEA negotiating team who have received Zowie-level raises over the past 11 years.

To be fair I think all of Mr. Higgins average raise versus average salary increase mis-statements could be expunged from the record, except for the overall sense of how it showed how little he understood a very very basic issue. When he applies 7% raises to a particular teacher (say Mr. Bailey or Mr. Iverson), he should get the same Zowie feeling since his concern was with how high the salary gets for a given specific teacher with 20+ years of compounded 7% raises. He has so far not publicly revisited his gut reaction.

Whatever the past, it is clear that any new contract will have to have a much smaller sheet-to-sheet raise. I think we all agree with that.

e^(i*pi)

TO: By Anonymous on December 19, 2009 9:49 PM

The core issue with the schools is the taxpayers are paying approximately 80-100% more than they were ten years ago for the exact same product (education).

There was little to no inflation over that period, and we are now in the third year of a deflationary depression that may continue for another 8-10 years or longer depending on the amount of job destruction and income redistribution the FEDs are able to cram down our throats.

In short; the economy is getting hollowed out, the welfare roles are growing under a bunch of new names, and the disposable income of those still working (many with reduced pay and benefits) is shrinking.

The statistical analysis that Mr. Higgins puts out is little more than a smoke screen to justify the teachers' union and the administrators, who draft behind them, extraordinary pay raises. The unionized trades, and connected contractors who do the construction for the school districts, charge rates that no company or individual could or would pay.

If $5000 dollar vouchers were readily available, I'm guessing that 50% of the students would bail out of 203 and 204 within a year or two. The Unions know this to be true which is why they keep your kids as prisoners in the school systems with the assistance of their political allies in Springfield.

One quick comment and I’m gone again.

With respect to e^(i*(2n+1)*pi)’s post of Dec. 18thth at 3:21;

In his post he wrote quite a bit about specific teachers (really certified staff as the contract includes more than teachers) raises. I haven’t verified the numbers, but let’s assume they are correct. Here is his culminating statement;

So 8.5%, 5.6%, 7.6%, 3.98%, 7.83%, 9.20% 1999-2008 (no estimates)
or 7.7%, 5.3%, 7.0%, 3.98%, 7.1% , 8.1% with the assumed 4%. Those are year-to-year raises for the past 9 (or 11) years. Zowie!

I believe his point here is that raises have been larger than the 5.77% I reported in my Overview of Teachers Salary Increases For Fiscal Years 2007-2010
.
Who’s right? To a certain extent we both are. e^(i*(2n+1)*pi) is using a few specific teachers. I’m using the entire staff in order to show the average for all staff. In addition to staff who are actively taking classes and moving up the scale (his example), we also have, as I remember, about 22% that are at the top of the pay scale (after 23 years) and only got a 2% raises . There are also people that aren’t taking classes and therefore are getting smaller raises as well. So in the end, when we take the entire certified staff the correct number is 5.77% for the period 2007-2010. Going back to 1999, as e^(i*(2n+1)*pi) does, the 5.77% looks like it goes up to about 6%, when again, you take into account all staff. If e^(i*(2n+1)*pi) is making the long standing argument that the average raise for all certified staff was 7% to 9% then he is in error. There are some finer points to this here and there, but this is more than close enough.

This time I’m really gone for Christmas, enjoy your holidays everyone.

Thom Higgins
QE203.org

Anonymous,

Thanks for caring about this topic. I will try to have a meatier response sometime soon.

In general I do not have problems with the majority of numbers on his website. The numbers (generally) are not the problem. It is the inappropriate juxtaposition of the data which concerns me and makes me realize he just does not understand what he is posting. The Overall Performance Score is a classic example. (I can reexplain later but the crux is that HS has a much lower OPS than K-8 and he is posting HS only for the other districts, whereas D203s number is buoyed by the K-8 scores. The number has no business being on this chart since it is calculated from a very different data set for the 2 groups.)

I am truly glad he finally understands the difference between the average raise and the increase in average salary. He made many (poor) comments in the spring, had the actual analyzed data in hand in March, and did not post anything further until recently. He then added in extra data not discussed back then. You can ask him what his motivation in delaying the truth was.

I am sad that he is trying to spin the answer back to the increase in average salary which was never a point of contention, except for my concern that average salary has been increasing at a higher rate than the rate of increase in tax collections. He recently asked me if I thought 2 numbers were close. "As to your second paragraph, do you not agree that the net increase (due to raises) for certified staff has, for the last 10 years, been extremely close to CPI for that time frame?" I gave an example he could understand (car loan) and pointed out with a link that I had actually answered this in the spring before he even knew it was a question.

I am sad he writes things like "Lastly for -1; I will offer the observation that Dan D. in his previous post seems to accepts the basic premise of turnover offsetting incumbent raises to reduce the total cost." Phrases like this seem to imply that Mr. Denys or I every questioned this. That appears very rude and disingenuous. Perhaps it isn't. Maybe he still truly misunderstands our prior discussions and thinks he is telling me something I did not know. Either way, it makes me sad.

In the end, all of us want the same thing: High Quality Education at a reasonable and sustainable cost. He defends the pay structure and staffing while others of us see the present system as a hindrance to more programs and better instructional opportunities.

Thanks again for reading.

e^(i*pi)

I have been following this thread for the last few days and I do not normally post on this or any topic. But this issue of teacher pay has me pretty interested. It seems that there are two separate arguments here. One is the cost to the taxpayer of salaries year-to-year. The other is the average raise of any given teacher from year-to-year. The two are completely separate arguments (with two separate correct answers), with at least somewhat separate implications both to teachers and district administrators as well as to taxpayers. The point has clearly been made on this thread and elsewhere and the numbers of both arguments are out there.

But it does not in any way, shape or form help what otherwise is an excellent discussion over issues of genuine public importance to let the conversation devolve into personal attacks. Having a genuine disagreement with someone does not make that person ignorant or stupid. Also, snide remarks and condescension come across as rude and spiteful rather than as intelligent conversation. This sort of thing is what tends to keep people out of the public eye. No one likes to be treated with disrespect in a genuine disagreement.

Any salient point that gets made while cloaked in any of these personal rhetorical devices tends to get lost in translation. This conversation seems to have devolved that way. I just started reading this thread and sort of got "hooked" a couple days ago because I thought that several posters -- namely Thom Higgins, Dan D and e^(i*pi) -- had very interesting thoughts on issues of education. I don't know exactly what Mr. Higgins said "8 months ago" to elicit the sort of spite recently posted by e^(i*pi), but I've also taken some of the time to look at his figures from his website. His figures seem to me to have credibility. So do those posted by Dan D and those by e^(i*pi). But what motivated me to post was simply that it seems that any good points made by e^(i*pi) recently are dilluted by the spite shown for Mr. Higgins. I don't know any of you, of course, and there are probably things I don't know contributing here, but a little civil discourse together with your salient points might be a very good thing.

TH is just plain wrong!

Taking advantage of turnover is a budgeting thing thatIS good for the taxpayer, but you cannot use it to gloss-over raises.

As posted many times: Take the same list of FT employees and their salaries for year x (Full year), compare that same list of SAME FT employees for year Y (full year) subtract and divide ----- the result is way over your meager, incorrect, and misleading 3.something percent.

Please quit misleading us.

Lastly for -1; I will offer the observation that Dan D. in his previous post seems to accepts the basic premise of turnover offsetting incumbent raises to reduce the total cost.

I am not sure anyone ever doubted this except you. It was you who did not understand that before, and that's what made you misunderstand the raise issue we were discussing. If you can show me any post where I actually said otherwise, I'd be quite impressed. There are several where I address that exact point. Please point me to a post where anyone other than you misunderstood this. Sir, I consider this uncivil of you.

some only got 2% Really? This must be only bottom of lane people. Or people who dropped a club sponsorship.

Some data which seems to be real for the NUEA negotiating team.

Name, Salary 2008, Salary 1999*, Avg raise, Avg Raise**

Mark Bailey 88460 42473 1.084935144 1.07662311
Brad Foerch 118731 72533 1.056284587 1.053304903
Dan Iverson 79083 40780 1.076364947 1.069659839
Wayne Anderson 129146 90884 1.039812027 1.039846201
Carol Higgins 70588 35821 1.078282544 1.071218756
Lisa Yost* 89846 44446 1.091963843 1.081367404

* no data from 1999 so I used 2000 and adjusted all calculations by one year.

Methodology: 2008 and 1999 salary taken from the champion website. If there are more accurate numbers, I am willing to use them.

Avg raise = Power(Salary2008/Salary1999, +1/9), in other words, the 9th root of the ratio of the 2 salaries. This represents the average year-over-year raise for each of these teachers in that time frame. For those keeping track, it also likely under-represents the raises just prior to the last (threatened) strike.

Avg Raise** = Power(Salary2008*1.04*1.04/Salary1999, +1/11). Here I gave everyone a presumed 4% raise over the two years Mr. Higgins will bring up, and did the same analysis over 11 years. If there were 2% raises, two of these people may be on that part of the pay schedule. If someone has the latest numbers and wants to post them so I can rerun these numbers, feel free. 4% is probably too low for the other four.

The percent raise per year is obviously found by subtracting 1 and then multiplying by 100.

Note that Mr. Anderson is at the end of a column so his average raises have been (as expected) smaller. I suspect Mr. Forsch is also. The other teachers surely had a lane change in there in addition to the steps.

XX M B , B F , D I , W A , C. H. , L Y
So 8.5%, 5.6%, 7.6%, 3.98%, 7.83%, 9.20% 1999-2008 (no estimates)
or 7.7%, 5.3%, 7.0%, 3.98%, 7.1% , 8.1% with the assumed 4%. Those are year-to-year raises for the past 9 (or 11) years. Zowie!

I see that Mr. Higgins just had a message posted. The OPS is fine to use. But you cannot fairly compare a unit OPS to a HS OPS. Plain and simple. Please reread what I said. Really. Look at my suggestion above. I am NOT arguing with the ISBE. I can read the report card also. But when you make a table including K-8 and 9-12 data you cannot use the HS OPS for the separated schools and the combined OPS for the K-12 district. If you want the document to actually appear to be unfair and biased, then keep the OPS for the HS district alongside the OPS for D203. If you want to be fair, remove it since the PSAE ACT and ISAT are already sitting there. If you want to try to make a reasonable comparison of OPS to OPS, do what I suggested on the weighted average. Gauging your skills, I'd suggest removing the OPS. trust me on this. This is not up for discussion. I am giving you truthful honest advice on how to make your presentation looks less biased. If you do not believe me, ask Mr. Zager. (subtle point, but too much work -- having the same OEPP for HS and K-8 is probably wrong, but not worth getting too excited over.)

Telling me Mr. Zager vetted the salary numbers means nothing in this conversation. really. I am not insulting him by saying this. I don't think anyone disagrees with the numbers. It is your attempts to cover your prior ignorance with a change in discussion which I object to. Rereading the prior discussion, It is clear that you had to wait 8 months to find some way to spin your message. You still haven't answered me about that 2.9% or 3.6% loan, but I can wait.

I agree with Mr. Higgins in his last 5 lines from early this AM.

More importantly, I agree with the message from Suicide Prevention Services. I ask that all of us check on our friends and neighbors who have lost loved ones for whatever reason to make sure they are doing okay this holiday season. Make sure they know they are not alone.

e^(i*2009*pi) - who knows a bit about powers of numbers, even when they are complex

Sally you are absolutely correct. It is a tax cap, we cannot go more even though we want more.

You have trouble without Allen Albus. He could twist the law to beat all these rules. And we are still suffering from the unions since we did not give them all ofthe money and reserved some for the capital program.

They really want their 8 to 9% salary increases reinstated.

Thom, keep pushing for the maximum taxes. Do not let these right wing guys keep their wealth.

e^(i*pi) aka -1

The Overall Performance Score, is calculated and reported by the ISBE (Illinois State Board of Education). If you are unhappy with the calculation, please contact them.

Secondly, I did a salary analysis, that’s all, period. Just because you want to discuss the total budget, doesn’t mean it’s incorrect. Secondly, The percentages, overall concept and structure, presented in my Overview of Teachers Salary Increases For Fiscal Years 2007-2010 was provided by The Assistant Superintendent of Finance for District 203, who vetted it before I posted it. If you don’t want to accept it, fine, that’s your prerogative.

As for the rest, it’s a week before Christmas, I’m done
.

Finally, regarding “Sally Cost’s” post

Sybil, after your e-mail to me last night, I was hoping you would stop this.

Thom Higgins
QE203.org

I am misunderstanding something here.

Aren't we required to increase taxes to the Tax Cap? And aren't emloyees entitled to all of the money we raise.

Thom, that is what you always say. Isn't Denis off by saying we can lower taxes?

REPRINTED FROM ABOVE

So as to not bury the lead, I will reprint the final paragraphs first:

For more information and support groups provided by Suicide Prevention Services, please visit: http://www.spsfv.org

It's such an important time of year for people who have suffered a loss to suicide and those who are suicidal to know that there is help. They are not alone. We are here. And we care. Additionally, there's a 24 hour hotline for anyone needing to talk: 800-273-TALK. Also 800-SUICIDE.

By Rosalinda Olszta & Jennifer Slepicka on December 8, 2009 2:52 PM

I do volunteer work for Suicide Prevention Services. They are only one of seven agencies in the whole country. And they are right here in Batavia. They have a 24-hour call center, counseling, support groups, depression screening.. they offer so much and get paid very little. It's mostly volunteers.

I want to make a public video of loved ones who have died by suicide. The holidays are hard. And to see a video of other people's loved ones- maybe people will see there are others. That they aren't alone. It will visually unify us.

The completed video will be posted on the Suicide prevention services Facebook page. That way, maybe people will become fans- and again- we will become unified. Maybe they will participate or volunteer- and Suicide prevention services will become bigger and stronger.
A Win-Win.

HERE IS WHAT I NEED FROM YOU: I need you to each contact your local newspaper. As a local resident. Letting them know we are doing this. It's free. It's a gift to the community. That's it. One email.

Here is what I wrote to the Kendall County Record, my local paper:
You can use this as a template and change it up if you want to make it your own, with your name at the bottom. You can use my words exactly, if you want. -And sign your name. And add your city.

Hi Kendall County Record,

The holidays are hard for ones who have lost loved ones. Particularly those to have lost a loved one to suicide. Whether a recent loss or one from a more distant past, I'd like the opportunity to visually unite us. We are making a video for all of us.

Those who have lost a loved one to suicide are called: Survivors of Suicide. The road to coping is long and painful, but it's ever so important to know that survivors are not alone. We are making a video. Of all of the loved ones we have lost to suicide. It's being made for Suicide Prevention Services. Here is a link to their Facebook page, where the completed video will be posted. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Suicide-Prevention-Services/46139089034?ref=ts

Anyone can submit. It's completely free. Submissions can be emailed to: spsfv@hotmail.com. We are hoping to have the video completed by Christmas, and posted on the Suicide Prevention Services facebook page.

Submit a photo and please add the note: "I give permission to have this photo used in a video for SPS." Send to: spsfv@hotmail.com.

For more information and support groups provided by Suicide Prevention Services, please visit: http://www.spsfv.org

It's such an important time of year for people who have suffered a loss to suicide and those who are suicidal to know that there is help. They are not alone. We are here. And we care. Additionally, there's a 24 hour hotline for anyone needing to talk: 800-273-TALK. Also 800-SUICIDE.

Very Truly,
Jen Slepicka
Yorkville Resident

Civility. It is civil to read posts and try to understand them before making further posts and passively demeaning comments about other's concepts.

As to the Overall Performance Score, as reported by the ISBE (Illinois State Board of Education), and included in my top 7 high school district analysis, reproduced here, the ACT, ISAT and OPS numbers are for the high schools. The ISAT score is, as indicated, for the elementary district. This is grossly deceptive to anyone who will be casually reading your "research". Either estimate an OPS by taking a weighted average or don't use it. Let PSAE*x + ISAT*(1-x) = OPS. I'll leave it to you to figure out what x should be for D203 and maybe you could use that as an estimate for the other districts. Otherwise you are worse than thechampion.

If you'd please reread all of the prior comments from the spring, you'd see that I actually addressed the turnover issues. It continues to pain me that you feel you must use a different explanation of the teacher raise data to hide your lack of understanding. And then you ask if the increase in average teacher salary is close to CPI. If you want to take out a loan at 2.9% and the guy in finance says he can give you one at 3.6%, would you think that is pretty close?

I even suggested a teacher pay system similar to Mr. Denys' teacher raise system. I had been working at it for at most one month. At the time, you had been working on QE203 and associated ideas for much much longer.

NOW, a QE203 problem which you can feel free to post a correct answer on your website.

A = certified teacher pay (increasing at ,say, CPI+.6%)

B = other certified teacher payroll costs(increasing, say, CPI + 5 %)

C = everything else (including hiring more staff for more programs or paying teachers extra for more programs. You know...things for the kids)

D= total revenue (increases by (a little less than) CPI since it is the sum of property tax (CPI limited) and outside revenue(which increases by less than CPI))

A + B + C = D

A and B are increasing at a higher rate than D. Please explain how C increases compared to CPI.

Please explain how A + B will eventually surpass D since they each grow at a rate higher than D.

Please explain what the increase in A must be to prevent deficit spending. Please explain why average teacher raise (6-7%*) has anything to do with this. (* only less than 6% in the most recent 2 years Hint: average teacher raise is one step removed from increase in average salary when turnover is taken into account.)

Please explain what we should do to make A + B rise at CPI. Explain how achieving that goal can still allow individual teacher raises greater than CPI. A + B = what the taxpayer sees to employ the certified teachers.

In all of this assume a constant student population.

I am glad that you realize 2 things:
1) Raises of 6-7% were common
2) Average teacher pay has been increasing faster than CPI

You still have no reasonable thoughts on AMPE, other than setting up the "remove the fat" joke. I appreciate it.

Pay Scale:
1) We are not lacking applicants or having problems retaining staff at the HS level. Therefore pay must be greater than or equal to what supply/demand would suggest.
2) High school teachers have a significantly larger workload and longer work hours than grade school teachers.
3) Separate districts (K-8 9-12) have significantly lower pay for K-8 teachers.
4) D203 grade school teachers are on the same payscale as HS teachers.

What is the conclusion? No, it is not "other local districts pay HS teachers more". That is indirectly taken into account in statement 1. Try again.

On the ECI...if all district finance managers use the ECI, then the excessive pay raise cycle (compared to revenues) will never be broken. Every union must want the ECI to be used.

Regarding thechampion.net : Are the numbers there wrong or just an incomplete set? I assumed an incomplete set. If you check my old posts, I addressed that issue. I am pretty sure I have only used thechampion for data and took it with a grain of salt.

Finally, I think the Wheaton-Warrenville schools should be your new hero.

e^(i*pi)

Here’s a little bit more for anonymous. Regarding this;

have reviewed the numbers as I lay them out, above, a
nd the average raises are way higher than the 3.2 something TH posts.

Let's all agree to tell the numeric truth azs job one, then post our dogma after said truth!

One last time;

I refer people to an analysis I did regarding this issue,. Overview of Teachers Salary Increases For Fiscal Years 2007-2010 As I have said repeatedly in this thread, a specific teacher could get a raise one year, based on tenure and educational attainment, as high as 16%, some only got 2%. It is also true that for the time period 2007-2010 the average was 5.57%, as well as being true that the net cost borne by the taxpayer (what it really cost us) was 3.62%. due to more expensive teachers being replaced by younger ones.

Regarding this from Dan D,

Thom on the other hand says keep raising taxes at 2.5% and give all of that to the teachers. People may get "tax relief" only if CPI is more than 2.5%, the extra amount will be collected and reduce the separate debt service levy. So Thom would give the teachers 6.5% salary increases.

No,I have never stated this, Not in this previous post or any others here, do I say to give teacher all of any tax increase due to CPI, nor have I said I want to give teachers 6.5% raises (or anything close to that). Some months ago here in the blog I made the statement that I felt that, at a minimum, there needs to be a base salary freeze. If the District wants to give the teachers the normal step and lane increase then that’s their decision, but it will be the Districts responsibility to balance whatever raise they agree to against any other budget needs, and available revenue. Heck, a base salary freeze, keeping the steps and lanes intact, would only average 3% or so. Dan’s using 4% in his example! It really must be Christmas:)

Where I believe Dan and I differ, is he thinks property taxes should go down. I am of the belief that monetary demands in other departments, and, or, reductions in State funding, will compete with any raises given for any additional revenue the District can raise through the CPI increase. The declining enrollment helps, (there was a net loss of 20-24 teachers for this school year due to declining enrollment and a decision to accept larger class sizes, but if CPI is 2.5% that means there’s 2.5% inflation and D203 will not be immune to that.

Lastly for -1; I will offer the observation that Dan D. in his previous post seems to accepts the basic premise of turnover offsetting incumbent raises to reduce the total cost.

I agree with Dan,
Here's wishing everyone a,
Merry Christmas

Happy Hanukkah

And a Safe and Happy new Year

.
Thom Higgins
QE203.org

I am going to make an obervation and a suggestion

Observation

Thom's post at 12/17/2009 at 2:05 AM is 90% consistent with my position. The only difference I perceive is I feel we should negotiate "market" salaries (inlcuding District paid benefits including health care) with no extras to the teachers for enrolment reduction and then tax for what you need. That would slow down the growth of school taxes in the near term UNLESS other funding sources are impacted.

Some reference points for MY POSITION

CPI 2.5%
Teachers gross salary increase 4% (based on market)
Turnover reduction (40% of teachers are in the top pay level, so this will continue)--2%
Enrollment Decrease 2%
Increase in teachers salary net (4% minus 2% minus 2%) 0% increase
Tax increase 0% (rather than 2.5%)

Thom on the other hand says keep raising taxes at 2.5% and give all of that to the teachers. People may get "tax relief" only if CPI is more than 2.5%, the extra amount will be collected and reduce the separate debt service levy. So Thom would give the teachers 6.5% salary increases.

Can't always agree, but at least he is not supporting the PREVIOUS union position--give us 6.5% (and Thom, even more, but I am too tired to pull out the other info)and raise taxes more so we are guaranteed that amount. We are only 2.5% apart. However, based on the current budget, that is $4.3 MILLION!!!!!!!!!!!!

As Dave Zager says in the budget message, "The labor negotiations in 2009-2010 will have a significant bearing on future budgets." (page 5 of the PDF, no page number on document). This issue is the singular most important issue.
Now the suggestion.

Thom, you have last crack to address this summary, however you want. Then we are done for the holidays (Christmas for me).

So to all, MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1

Sadly, once again, I note your lack of civility.

As to the Overall Performance Score, as reported by the ISBE (Illinois State Board of Education), and included in my top 7 high school district analysis, reproduced here, the ACT, ISAT and OPS numbers are for the high schools. The ISAT score is, as indicated, for the elementary district.

As to the rest of your comments, I repeat once again, when you take staff turnover into consideration, the net increase (which is the actual amount that taxpayers pay for salary increases) for certified staff, during the period discussed, 2007-2010 was 3.62%. We have gone over, and over this. You can insult me all you like. The number is correct, this is the monetary cost to the district and the taxpayer for incumbent staff, not your 6%-7%, not the gross 5.7% from the analysis.

The analysis is for salaries only, and does not include heath care costs, nor have I discussed the topic of health care costs. That is a separate issue. You want to discuss them together but it wasn’t part of the analysis.

Lastly, the discussion on salaries lasted something like 30 days in March. The discussion petered out as it got closer to the school board election, and didn’t start until I finally got around to finishing and posting Overview of Teacher Salary Increases for Fiscal Years 2007-2010. During that time another years data became available. I added it in, just as I will add next years data when it becomes available. I don’t understand why you are complaining.

Anonymous,

The problem with how the Champion calculated raises was they assumed everyone worked a full year. If you had an $80,000 salary, and was hired mid-year, the report would show a $40,000 salary the first year, a $80,000 salary the second year, and a 100% raise. Gross over simplification of course. The fact that the Champion dropped this feature recently, should tell you something.

Thom Higgins
QE203.org

Mr. Higgins,

Are you really that clueless? Please reread my question about Overall Performance Score. Did you just choose some number out of the air for the non K-12 "districts"?

Regarding "what the taxpayer sees" : that is a completely new statement YOU created to cover your past lack of knowledge. You can say whatever you want about whatever you want, but when you accuse me of muddying the waters it'll get a response.

More later, although at this point I might as well be talking with my monitor.

Apparently Higgins took a long time to be a gentleman and decided to editorialize and add in additional year (2010?) not available at the time of the challenge. Very manly.

No I do not agree the CPI is close enough to the average salary increase*. I seem to mention 6-7% raises and you were incorrectly dismissive of my thoughts.

Now to the meat. We can now only get to the rest of the equation now that Mr. Zager, I am sure, told you that you were wrong about teacher raises.

Since you must agree that total salary is increasing by more than CPI (not almost not a bit less than) and other associated payroll items are increasing faster than CPI also, then everything else increases less than CPI. If you cannot grasp this, please save your politeness training class offer for me and Mr Denys and spend it on some classes for yourself. The way to make the total salary and associated payroll items equal CPI is to decrease raises (or cut staff or control health care costs).

-1

A little more clarity (and simplification):

If Teacher X (I don't careif they are new or been around awhile) works a full year (ie 9 months) in 2008 and makes $35,000, then works a full year (again, 9 months) in 2009 and makes $70,000, that is a 100% raise!

Call it a stipend, call it a grade level change, call it a bump, call it anyhting ------ IT IS 100%!!!

Anything selse is just doubletalk intended to mislead.

I have reviewed the numbers as I lay them out, above, and the average raises are way higher than the 3.2 something TH posts.

Let's all agree to tell the numeric truth azs job one, then post our dogma after said truth!

e^(i*pi) aka -1

My salary analysis Overview of Teacher Salary Increases for Fiscal Years 2007-2010 dealt with increases in salary only. It did not discuss health care benefits. Therefore, I am entitled to say that the net cost to the taxpayer (what they really pay) for salary increases is 3.54% over the period stated. You brought up health care not me.

As to your second paragraph, do you not agree that the net increase (due to raises) for certified staff has, for the last 10 years, been extremely close to CPI for that time frame?

The state created the “Overall Performance Score”, I have nothing to do with it.

Understanding what you are saying about teacher pay? See above.

ECI: I see you have posted a link to a previous post. Good. I will offer a response to it, most likely after Christmas.

Dan,
You took part of -1’s comment and spliced it with mine. Here it is separated.

Me; You now are trying to bring in health care costs, and criticize for me not taking them into account in the analysis. It’s a separate issue.

-1; Are you really saying that the taxpayer does not heavily subsidize health care for the employees and therefore the taxpayer does not see that? As an employer I certainly see it.

Me; This (added for clarity) is irrelevant to my salary analysis, and frankly, anyone who receives health care benefits from their employer, be it a school district or a private company, has those benefits subsidized but their employer, although the level of subsidization varies.

To both of you Dan and -1, I did a salary analysis. Nowhere in it do I discuss health care costs. The analysis was done to explain what actual average raises were for certified staff, as a way to counter the vast amount of incorrect information provided by the Champion, The Taxpayers Ticket and others, who, for some time, incorrectly claimed that average raises were in the 8% to 9% range. These were claims as to teachers raises, nothing more, and that is what I responded to.

Thom Higgins
QE203.org

I missed Thom's 12/17/09 2:05 am posting.

Generally I agree on steps 1 through 5. The only change I had proposed is that salaries should be based on an objective standard, not taking all of the funds that the tax cap would provide.

POint 5 needs to be a priority, on parity with salary increases. My suggestion was that all salaries for position be used to reduce taxes, a very objective standard. The District should not take the revenue as enrollment declines. This would meet e^(i*pi)'s concept.

And as for ECI, I will not blindly follow what one recommends unless the concept is fully vetted. Particularly when the concept does not reconcile with reality.

But, in general, if people would have read you comments, they would have though of you as Sean Hannity rather than Rachel Maddow. And I think you would agree that this will be difficult to achieve based on the union's historical posturing.

It did take you six days to substantially agree.

Read this article, this is a bigger picture of what is happening with teachers. The teachers and their union are out of control. We need to stop them before they bankrupt the entire state.

I am more cogent at 10AM after some coffee compared to 5AM.

Are you suggesting surgery to achieve this magical 20% reduction ?:) Yes, I am suggesting surgery -- LIPOSUCTION

-1

Thom's comments

"As an employer I certainly see it (health care benefits) is irrelevant to my salary analysis, and frankly, anyone who receives health care benefits from their employer, be it a school district or a private company, has those benefits subsidized but their employer, although the level of subsidization varies."

This comment is unbelievable. If health care costs increase 25% and that increase is equal to say 1.6% of the related salary expenses, a business will LOWER its pay raises by that amount. Why? Because they have to pay this other cost and cannot afford to pay higher salary increases.

In fact, Thom, I would guess that if your dealership provides medical benefits, you either net health care benefits against your take home pay or your employer has reduced your commission rates to offset higher health care costs. You of all people should see this directly!!

And most of my governmental clients take this into account as well. One of the most progressive (innovative) has a pool of money for teacher compensation. It is tied to the tax cap--CPI plus 1% (no allowance for new growth). The floor is 1%, the ceiling is 6%. The first thing that is done is to take away from this number the projected increase in medical expenses. Then they take away the "locked in steps" and if there is money left over, they can give a general increase. The teachers have followed this contract without a work stoppage for 18 years.

Two points if you have not followed it. Employers including school district do care about medical costs (they have to care). Second, there are more reasonable people out there compared to the 203 union (at least historically).

Mr Hggins,

I am not muddying the water. YOU are making incorrect statements. What "the taxpayer sees" is a sum of ALL of the employment costs. What "the taxpayer sees" was not part of any prior conversation. That is something you made up. If you want to use that phrase, you must include all employee costs. I did a very nice job of discussing this exact topic in the spring.

I am going to calmly ask you to reread all of the comments I made in the spring. 8+ months later you finally seem to understand some of it. Regarding employee costs rising faster than CPI, district income fixed by CPI (actually less since that is only the local property tax levy and outside sources seem to not grow as fast), it is clear that everything else gets squeezed out. THE way to control that is with lower raises. If you cannot understand that, then I feel sorry for you. Truly. I had a nice description of exponential functions back then. Please find it. If you have questions, do not ask that we sit down with Mr. Zager to see who is correct (we know the answer there, don't we). You can ask him.

Overall Performance Score: How do Lake Forest, Hinsdale, Stevenson and Highland Park have lower performance scores despite better ACT PSAE and ISAT scores. If you notice, when I give a calculated index, I give my methodology so anyone else can verify the numbers. Or are you just making up an unvalidated index.

AMPE. Are you just being contrary? Or (insulting words removed)?

Teacher pay. Do you really not understand what I am saying above? Sad.

ECI. If there were ever a self-fulfilling self-replicating number, this is it.

Graph Search around for the explanation.

e^(i*pi)

For Dan Denys

Just read your post.

Christmas is coming and I’m thinking of giving both you and e^(i*pi ) aka -1 gift certificates for lesson’s in civility. You both need it these days.

Regardless, what on earth are you talking about?

1. My position is that the district will have to live within whatever increases CPI, (zero for now) will bring in for the foreseeable future. I do not believe there will be any operating referendums to increase revenue, nor do I think there will be any reduction in taxes either.

2. Potential losses, or reductions in state funding , will put additional strains on the budget.

3. The cost of any new initiatives will have to be offset, or new funding sources (not property taxes) will have to be found.

4. Any salary increases will have to reflect the above realities.

5. If we have high inflation in the future, is it possible the district will abate the referendum charges, just as they did last year? Yes, the Finance Review Committee did discuss abating for a second year, but my understanding is due to the .1% CPI chose not to recommend it.

6. As to ECI. The Ast. Supt. of Finance for District 203 uses the index in his salary analysis, so he seems to find it valuable.

Thom Higgins
QE203.org

Message to e^(i*pi)

If you are going to pound your head about numbers with Thom, concepts are even more of a problem. Look at my outline for teacher salary negotiations. Thom says we cannont commit the extra money the distirct would have due to enrollment declines to tax relief (or not tax for the moeny). Then he rants about the District losing a disproportionate amount of money. That concept also argues for salary restraint as well.

What is more amazing is that the school board does not endorse his concepts. They have two challenges ahead of them. First, the teachers contract. They could care less about ECI or any babble that tries to say the rest of the world has received 6% plus raises consistently over the last ten years. The airline pilot had to agree to a 35% salary reduction to keep his job, another had changed companies in an industry where unemployment is becoming the norm. They know what is really happening.

And the second issue seems to be raised by Mr. Mitrovich about the quality of education in district 203. Right on. He should start at the bottom and move up. The District could do more by refocussing resources. This whole discussion about AMPE teachers amplify this concern. The focus should be the primary teacher in the classroom and the student. I hope future 203 parents are given the options that parents in the North Shore already enjoy.

Have fun with Thom.

If all you are intent on doing is trying to muddy the water and insult me, you aren't providing much of an environment for respectful discussion are you?

Briefly, we have been discussing raises for certified staff (need to stop defining the group as only teachers) my analysis Overview of Teachers Salary Increases For Fiscal Years 2007-2010 helps give a reader a greater understanding of that specific topic.

You now are trying to bring in health care costs, and criticize for me not taking them into account in the analysis. It’s a separate issue. Your comment, Are you really saying that the taxpayer does not heavily subsidize health care for the employees and therefore the taxpayer does not see that? As an employer I certainly see it. is irrelevant to my salary analysis, and frankly, anyone who receives health care benefits from their employer, be it a school district or a private company, has those benefits subsidized but their employer, although the level of subsidization varies.

Your Zowie question, are you referring to this? Mr Higgins: I'd like you to revisit your ZOWIE! moment with 6.25% raises instead of 7%. See if you still say ZOWIE! I suspect you will. Heck -- use 5.57% if you'd like. OK, I’ll play with it.

As to this, Stop Stop Stop talking about educational value compared to others. It was that way 10 years ago and will continue that way lacking a massive referendum .We can and should only compare D203 to D203 at this point. Hard Stop

Why so provincial? Is there not a value in benchmarking the district against its peers? What’s the best Educational Value in Chicagoland offers the reader a variety of different studies and analysis’ that helps the reader understand how District 203 stacks up. On both a financial and academic basis. And Yeah, I know, compared to the rest, we look really good on both fronts.

As to your claims about 203’s skyrocketing OEPP hey, go for it. Feel free to put up your best, most succinct case, that shows how D203’s OEPP is skyrocketing. And yes, you have to compare it to other school districts in my view.

Regarding this, I am really having a hard time figuring out why my AMPE plan is flawed,… Plain and simple solution. Make the less than 100% AMPE teachers just that. If an .80 teacher is needed at the high school, then they get an .80 teacher. Are you suggesting surgery to achieve this magical 20% reduction ?:)

Regarding this, Later I can address grade school pay. I will briefly state that by all market principles, the D203 high school teachers are not underpaid. And all separate districts have grade school teachers on a much lower pay scale than HS. Connect the dots if you can. And comparable high school districts pay their teacher more than District 203 as well.

As for your question, “what is Overall Performance Score?” Overall Performance Score is the blended score for all state tests i.e. ISAT for elementary and PSAE for high schools. Really only has much interest for CUSD’s as they combine both tests. If you look at a specific HS the OPS is essentially the same as the PSAE score, and the ISAT is the same as the OPS in Elementary. I’ve played around with low income and how it correlates to and academic performance . If you look at QE203’s analysis of the Illinois State Report Cards in What’s the best Educational Value in Chicagoland . you will see the low income percentages for the various districts discussed.

I like to look at it from an individual school basis, as different HS’s in the same district can have very different percentages of low income students. Here are some quick stats;

Naperville North 9.6% Low Income 24.8 ACT

Naperville Central 5.4% Low Income 25.2 ACT

Nequa 2.3%Low Income 24.4% ACT

Waubonsie 10.8% Low Income 23 ACT

Lisle 14.3% Low Income 22.4% ACT

Wheaton North 20.5% Low Income 23.9 ACT

Wheaton Warrenville South 14.8% Low Income 24.1 ACT

Couple of observations. North’s ACT dropped .6 from 2008. That’s statistically significant. Low Income was 1% less in 2008. Lisle’s Low Income increased approximately 6% over 2008. Wheaton North looks to be doing a very nice job.

Thom Higgins
QE203.org

Mr. Higgins:

OK I'll bite...What is "Overall Performance Score"? I'd like to hear about this metric. Where else has it been used and what goes into it?

Frankly, Wheaton-Warrenville 200 looks great on this analysis especially given the 20%+ poverty rate. I bet if you normalized the data for income status, WW200 would come out ahead of D203.

-1

Mr. Higgins,

Are you really saying that the taxpayer does not heavily subsidize health care for the employees and therefore the taxpayer does not see that? As an employer I certainly see it.

I will try very hard to make my points again later, but since you continue to be mathematically...deficient..I don't have the time right now. I sent a large chunk of the spring trying to teach you something. You still have not responded to the new Zowie! request now that you know you were wrong all that time.

Stop Stop Stop talking about educational value compared to others. It was that way 10 years ago and will continue that way lacking a massive referendum. We can and should only compare D203 to D203 at this point. Hard Stop. It apparently is of no use to discuss this with you, since your red dot god still rules your life and any new sighting is seen by you as new evidence of its existence and not just a reflection of the past.

You also admitted previously that the use of prior Operating referendum funds for Site and Construction would artificially lower the OEPP. That is not factored into the 103%. I am also happy to link my previous plot of OEPP compared to the state average but that had too many concepts at once for you. At that time you chided me for leaving out data points. They were plotted on the graph but somehow you couldn't read the graph at that time.

I am really having a hard time figuring out why my AMPE plan is flawed. Truly. Additional full class enrichment. Why is this needed and doesn't it just detract from the actual core curriculum? You have made zero salient points on this topic. Plain and simple solution. Make the less than 100% AMPE teachers just that. If an .80 teacher is needed at the high school, then they get an .80 teacher. Collaborative planning time before or after school. I do have a bit of background in complex scheduling problems. This is not one.

How much non-teaching time do you think an AMPE teacher has who must teach 17 classes for an hour each week. ( or 34 half hour classes). Maybe you can do some 2nd grade calculations. 22 classes per week (!?!?) is considered full time in the schools with more than 22 classes. Also note that regular classroom teachers get 150 minutes of planning per week not 30 minutes per day.

If the school board is not even considering the part time option, then I am very concerned.

Yes this is only about 4FTE, but not addressing waste is silly. When employees do not have work to do, do not keep them fully employed by having them do work which is below their pay grade especially when the future shows less work needed.

Later I can address grade school pay. I will briefly state that by all market principles, the D203 high school teachers are not underpaid. And all separate districts have grade school teachers on a much lower pay scale than HS. Connect the dots if you can.

-1

red dot god = D203 plot point in the Herald News report about school districts.

Not all inexperienced teachers are bad, they are merely at a disadvantage. I have known some new teachers who were great.

The real advantages for the experienced teacher is that they know the curriculum and have had time to develop their lessons to be more effective, have already developed classroom management and disciplinary techniques, and already know the ins and outs of the "system" in the school. (In terms of getting additional assistance for kids who need it.)

This is why most districts now pair one of the veterans with a new teacher. They can help the new teacher through those obstacles. I will say that this is way better than my first year teaching where I was teaching first grade in a wing separate from the other first grades in the building. I was pretty much ignored by my so called "team" at the time, even to the point that they planned field trips without my class. Luckily the kindergarten teacher was there for me whenever I needed help. She had taught first grade in the past.

Dan -
Did I advocate for major increases? No. It just seemed as if people on here seemed to think that all teachers should be paid the same regardless of years. If you look at what I wrote, I did say that I believed that all industries should be looking at possibly pay freezes or small raises in this economy. I really was just commenting on the fact that people with more experience should and do get paid more in almost all jobs if their performance reviews have been good.

Dan wrote "And for entry level personnel, they get hired at probationary salary levels. They are purposely underpaid until they can demonstrate that the deserve the regular salary."

Hmmm.. not always and not in every business. My husband was not hired on a probationary level when he finished college. And even in the years where he was not promoted his raises were far above CPI.

Regardless, I am not advocating for huge salary increases. As I said before "I am not saying that salaries and the schedules for teachers are perfect. I think overall, the starting salaries in general are decent, in some districts maybe a little high." I probably should have indicated at the time that I do believe some districts pay too much across the board. But overall I think teachers are fairly compensated.

I do tend to be a bit of a "rebel" teacher in that I don't like tenure (as stated earlier) and am not particularly pro union.

in general I do not think a veteran teacher getting paid more than a new hire should be an issue.

Of course you are right. I really do not think Dan D would disagree either. At some point, though (my estimation -- year 10) additional years do not produce much additional "value" to either the students or the district. Some districts have fewer steps.

The point being made was that there is no decreased cost to the parent for having a child trying to learn from an inexperienced teacher. The end user (student) bears the burden of having the new teacher.

-1

A couple of points.

1. Downtown School in Des Moines. This school has 300 students and a waiting list of 800. Des Moines also has five other "application" schools. While larger than 203, they are dealing with a more diverse population. But they are providing choice, something that 203 does not offer.

Why can't this work with the 203 contract? The school could hire clerical people to supervise recess and lunch hours at the $19 per hour Thome quoted and that would provide these teachers with their contractual breaks.

How open minded can one be if they do not consider all of the alternatives. This type of education worked just fine for the 90% of us before the days of specialists. Specialists should be avaiable on a fee for service basis (could contract with an outsidea agency) and subsidize the cost only for low income people.

2. The enrichment people. They are not even full fledged teachers. Our best and brightest are entrusted to teachers aides who cannot or choose not to become teachers. Would all students be better off with aides? This is a rhetorical question. How can you have a general classroom teacher making $40,000 to $100,000 and the specialist Thom raves about making $18,000?

3. To the former teacher. You make good points. But businesses do not pay people who stay in the same job major increases. In fact, the older, more experienced, higher paid employees are the first to be fired. That is how businesses justify paying people CPI (not CPI times 2). And you do get major raises if you get a higher job.

And for entry level personnel, they get hired at probationary salary levels. They are purposely underpaid until they can demonstrate that the deserve the regular salary. If this were applied to teaching, the teacher salary would be 60% of the starting salary. And there would be another teacher in the class for at least 20% of the time.

We are going through some unprecedented times. And from my perspective, they are not going to improve, particularly as Illinois contracts as businesses avoid the state due to it poor business climate. It is pro union, high corporate tax state.

And it might be that if the Fed achieves its goal of containing inflation, salaries will not go up much, if at all each year. Just like the 50's and the 60's. Slight increases. Be ready for a new reality.

-1

Regarding your comment about what the taxpayer sees.I wish we could stop going around and around with this. Briefly regarding teachers raises;

1. Total average annual increase to compensation for an incumbent teacher between each consecutive year, for the period 2007-2010, was 5.57%

2. Savings due to lower salaries of teachers replacing those that have retired or terminated (turnover) was 1.86%

3. The net average annual increase in salary cost incurred by the district and paid by the taxpayer was 3.62%.

4. Shorter average tenure is reflected in these numbers.

5. These numbers are for paid compensation, and do not include health care costs.

As to skyrocketing OEPP please tell me we aren’t going to have to re-visit that again? If you want to claim it’s skyrocketing fine, but as I have said previously, your argument is weak at best as you;

1. Leave out higher prior years that would illustrate that, (in opposition to your trajectory claim) 203’s OEPP spending dipped below the state average, (for four concurrent years) essentially in the middle of in the past 12.

2. Disregard the fact that OEPP can fluctuate due to the level of capital expenditures for any given year.

3. Disregard the fact that the years where it was under the state average were the years the District was under financial distress and minimized capital expenditures.

4. Try to make the case that the district is experiencing skyrocketing OEPP when the reality is the District, at 3% over the state average, is a real bargain when compared to essentially all other districts that are 20%-30% over the state average as illustrated by this analysis; What’s the best Educational Value in Chicagoland

Regarding this;

Advocating that increases in total teacher compensation be limited to CPI in no way limits the individual teacher to an increase less than or equal to CPI. You seem to still not understand the power of turnover. Turnover allows everyone who stays to get more than CPI. Please stop saying that anyone here is truly advocating for individual raises in total compensation to be just CPI. Yes, I did read what Mr. Denys was pondering and my prior sentence makes sense.

If you are saying (using the example above) that incumbent teachers (teachers who stay) can receive 5.57% raises and still have them, as a group, ( after we take into consideration turnover) effectively limited to CPI. Yes, I agree.

As to your ECI comments, you might find it of value to discuss this with Dave Zager. He uses the index in his analysis. If you want to consider a teachers shorter work year an some sort of additional benefit, fine, but nobody talks about a teachers salary other then annual compensation, just like the annual compensation in the private sector. And remember teachers often use summers to complete advanced degrees.

As to this can also read 6.15A in the contract and honestly state that my suggestion that AMPE teachers be decreased to some part time fraction greater than .5 is legitimate. Or maybe have 2 teachers teaching the 3 AMPE classes at some of the schools.

The bottom line to me is how many free periods are there for AMPE teachers in a given school, and how are they being utilized. Remember, the District left 31 teachers go for the 09-10 school year. If they felt they could drop one FTE AMPE teacher at a given school I have to believe they would have done so. Staffing is part logistics, part art. The district, realizing there was free time that equaled less than a FTE, due to fewer classes per grade at some schools, opened the discussion and made the decision to have any free time used to additional enrichment.

As to your enrichment aide question, you could get a better, fuller, description of the program from a local school principal or the district itself.

Lastly this ;

By Peat Shoeman on December 16, 2009 9:18 AM

Sybil, Sybil, Sybil, what are we going to do with you? The rest will be here soon won't they?

Thom Higgins

QE203.org

I think the question I now have on all of this discussion is:
What is so bad about a more veteran teacher getting paid more than a new teacher, even if they are essentially doing the same job?

Even in business, new hires do not get the same pay as the veterans, regardless of whether they are doing the same job or not. People in business do not "move up" in responsibility every single year, yet they often get raises even when they don't move up. I will agree that in the past year, some companies have frozen their salaries, given minimal raises, or frozen bonuses due to the economy, but that has not been the norm in other years. In the past, those in business also got the added benefit of getting bonuses on top of those salaries.

Let's keep in mind that the positions one can "move up to" in education are somewhat limited and not every teacher has the desire to go into administration. ( I sure didn't... the joy in teaching was the daily interaction with the students in my classroom. That would have been gone had I decided to move up in the system.) There are some people I taught with over the year that I wish had stayed in the classroom because of the phenomenal job they were doing. It was a real loss for the students in the schools when those people left the classroom.

While I would agree that in this economy, EVERYONE in any job anywhere should be willing to forgo raises, bonuses etc. for the year, in general I do not think a veteran teacher getting paid more than a new hire should be an issue.

Even my son who works part time at a health club and my daughter who works part time at Starbucks have gotten raises above minimum wage since they started at those jobs. Neither have "moved up" in position due to their part time status, but they are valued as better employees due to the time they have worked those jobs. Both have received positive performance reviews that merited those raises - in fact my daughter received the highest score in the region.

I am not saying that salaries and the schedules for teachers are perfect. I think overall, the starting salaries in general are decent, in some districts maybe a little high. I am just a little surprised by the attitude of some on here that seem to believe that a teacher with more experience should not get paid more than a new one.

Brother Thom,

First, may the rustling of the trees, the winds of the prairie, and the solstice of the winter sun calm your nerves. Us people cannot lose our patience as we confront the evils of capitalism and try to convert this nation. Take (I mean Spread) the Wealth!!

However, I think you owe Dan D. another apology. I have never once in this or other blogs noted that he said that teachers were overpaid. He has tried to lay out facts from the various sources on teacher salary increases, the amount and surveys from the bureau of labor statistics. He asked that increases be compared to other schools and professions, but never went beyond that comment.

And Thom, if it will take you 30 to 45 days to explain EWI, it will be too late for any meaningful contribution to the salary increase debate. I noticed that Dan D. tried to get a simple answer and he could not do it. He even approached several noted economists. I have not even received a salary increase greater than 2%, so I tend to think your interpretation of EWI is wrong.

I am impressed that even though it took you 8 months, you have come to agreement on the average increase for a typical teacher with all of your opponents. It would be right of you to go back and correct all of the comments that you made based on your misunderstanding. If you do this, you will find you were very critical of those who were right.

Mr. Higgins:

School based AMPE .... http://blogs.suburbanchicagonews.com/newsblog/2009/12/whats_on_your_mind_1.html#comment-104714

What the taxpayer sees: What you seem to be missing is that you cannot say the net increase in average teacher salary being (some number greater than CPI say 3.68%) is all the taxpayer sees when some things are missing from your argument: Loss of years of experience (about 3 years in the past 10 IF that even matters) and health care benefits which also rise much faster than CPI. Yes, I understand that there was a redo of health benefits a few years ago to try to stop the increase. When the increase in payroll (average salary X number of employees) is greater than CPI to begin with, you add in rising health care costs (um..see ECI), then increases in payroll associated with present employees start squeezing out all other possible programs. Or you rely on decreasing enrollment to allow the OEPP to skyrocket. THAT is why actual raises actually mean something.

Advocating that increases in total teacher compensation be limited to CPI in no way limits the individual teacher to an increase less than or equal to CPI. You seem to still not understand the power of turnover. Turnover allows everyone who stays to get more than CPI. Please stop saying that anyone here is truly advocating for individual raises in total compensation to be just CPI. Yes, I did read what Mr. Denys was pondering and my prior sentence makes sense.

Just a note on ECI. The ECI does a nice job of using hours worked in their analysis. I previously stated that I do not feel comfortable comparing hourly wages because the teacher is compensated with a certain salary and certain benefits. One of those benefits is 3 months off each year.

I can read the NUEA CBA which limits grade school teachers to 26.25 hours of instructional time each week. I can read the staffing document from the spring to see that AMPE teachers are consider full time with 22 hours of classroom each week. I can read that recess duty (not lunch duty) is considered classroom time. I can read that grade school employees get 40 minute of lunch(* although I am pretty sure this is violated out of the teachers favor when kids must catch up with missed/late assignments).

I can also read 6.15A in the contract and honestly state that my suggestion that AMPE teachers be decreased to some part time fraction greater than .5 is legitimate. Or maybe have 2 teachers teaching the 3 AMPE classes at some of the schools.

Enrichment assistants are what they are called. My comments were from what I heard from many people at different schools in casual conversation. You still didn't say who they are or what the special skill set needed is.

-1 .. did I mention that -1 is e^(i*pi)'s crankier half?

p.s. Although you may not realize it, asking someone if they looked at something when it is clear they did comes across as an insult and will be reacted to a such. In our (Thom Higgins, e^(i*pi)) case especially so when it comes to numbers.

Subj: federal pay increase

Here's a paraphrase from a note circulating...

Last week Congress passed a 2% salary increases for all civilian federal employees. It doesn't sound like much when you read the quote in the Washington Post, below, from Steny Hoyer (D-Md.). It fact it almost seems like federal pay is way out of line, even meager, compared to private sector salaries and benefits.

When you finish that, read the BLS pdf (link below), released the very next day. Pay special attention to the retirement and health benefits in Table A. Do you think federal employees are underpaid?

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf

My additions:

Fed, State and Local Govs/Quasi Govs just dont seem to get the message. You see very little change - window dressing really - compared to private industry who slash "as needed" to stay effecient and viable. If you count real hours worked (gov vs private industry) you can add another 20% to the government compensation per hour worked.

This shows up locally in Naperville cutting jobs that did not exist (remember the 23 positions that were planned but not filled?) Is that cutting waste? Who are they fooling?

This also shows up in school districts. I am the last to say cut teacher salaries, but really, should any administrator make more than a principal. We have over 400 D204 employees making in excess of $100,000 when adjusted for the fact that only a handful work the full year. That's out of just over 1000 employees. There are maybe 31 principles in D204, so we know where the fat is. The train needs to be stopped, the career ending "bump ups" ceased, and the pension plans cut in half, or we will be in deep trouble very soon.

-1

I liked you 7:46 post better, but I wouldn’t suggest telling any elementary teacher you meet that when it comes to the classes they teach, they are mediocre at all of them :)

As to this comment by you; Collaborative time. Simple. Grade school teachers must arrive 30 minutes earlier once each week. Done. End of problem. No busing issues. No extensive additional time. They are still there less time than HS and Jr High teachers

I hear there is a real desire on the part of Superintendant Mitrovich for a longer elementary day, but as in the past, the additional cost is a factor So we could see some shifting of the whole District schedule at some point, if the logistics of the bus service and the additional cost can be overcome. A longer elementary day means more buses and additional cost. It’s not just about 30 minutes a week collaboration time..

Regarding this from your 9:31 post;

Did you, Mr. can't understand math, Mr. never been 6-7% raises, Mr. Zowie! actually ask me this question : "Also, I have to ask you, have you totaled the number of elementary classes, and AMPE teachers, to calculate how much “free time” there is at each school?" Surely you jest. I also tried to project next year's enrollments to make my prior comments

Well, yeah, I’m asking. If you posted it above and I missed it, my apologies. But if you haven’t posted it, and especially if you have done the analysis on a school by school basis, will you please share it with us? Also, I’ve been respectful of you, you might consider returning the favor. If you think your depreciating comments makes me look bad, hey, have a ball.

Regarding this;

Regarding the enrichment teachers. There were a large number of people who were incredulous that enrichment enrichment, I say could be taught by AMPE teachers. No way could my child learn anything from an AMPE teacher. We must keep those highly skilled enrichment teachers ...er...whatever they are. People have no clue. Would you care to explain what and who the enrichment "teachers" are.

I attended the meeting at Central that Dr. Leis hosted to discuss this issue. I did not hear this criticism raised there, or talking to the teachers at my daughters elementary school.. The enrichment teachers are very well regarded, and people were upset at the prospect of losing them. As I remember the Principals wanted to keep them as well. For those that are unfamiliar with what enrichment is here is the District webpage.

Regarding this;

By Sally Cost on December 15, 2009 8:55 PM

Sybl, is that you?

.

Thom Higgins
QE203.org

Mr Higgins:

Did you, Mr. can't understand math, Mr. never been 6-7% raises, Mr. Zowie! actually ask me this question : "Also, I have to ask you, have you totaled the number of elementary classes, and AMPE teachers, to calculate how much “free time” there is at each school?" Surely you jest. I also tried to project next year's enrollments to make my prior comments.

Regarding circular logic and experienced vs newer teacher arguments. Behold the beauty of faulty if..then statements.

Regarding the enrichment teachers. There were a large number of people who were incredulous that enrichment enrichment, I say could be taught by AMPE teachers. No way could my child learn anything from an AMPE teacher. We must keep those highly skilled enrichment teachers ...er...whatever they are. People have no clue. Would you care to explain what and who the enrichment "teachers" are.

-1

thom higgins says

"As to your comments regarding specialists vs. general-ed teachers, again, you might not agree with it, but I will assure you, it will not be changing."

Does higgins think he is Alexander Haig? Last I saw, he had no role in the District. Unless, of course, he was talking about car salesmen specialists, they will not be allowed to teach in 203.

Mr. Higgins,

have I said anything bad about how the curriculum is aligned with state testing standards. It is quite good at that (most of the time). I proposed an idea to make it work better -- each grade teacher group has a teacher who is responsible for being GREAT at one of the subjects I listed instead of mediocre at all of them. These are the core subjects.

I am in no way shape or form selling short the importance of grade school teachers.

Enrichment assistants are not certified staff. Using AMPE teachers for enrichment costs a lot more than making the AMPE teachers, say, .80 time or .75 time or whatever.

I am not coming close to advocating the same thing as Mr. Denys.

Do you not agree that a 15 year teacher better be more capable than a beginning teacher, and thus worth more? For whom is the more experienced teacher producing more value? That is the core question.

Collaborative time. Simple. Grade school teachers must arrive 30 minutes earlier once each week. Done. End of problem. No busing issues. No extensive additional time. They are still there less time than HS and Jr High teachers.

-1

-1

A lot to comment on here. You may not like how 203 staff’s, or the districts underlying educational philosophy, but I have to tell you 203 is widely regarded as being very progressive in how it develops its curriculum, tests that curriculum's effectiveness and implements changes. 203 develops a great deal of its own curriculum, as opposed to simply buying a canned text book and teaching guide. It’s truly a vast subject that I plan on writing about soon. I do know 203 is extremely well regarded in this, and has sold at least one of its programs (early reading I believe) through Houghton Mifflin. I remember hearing that it plans on doing more of this, as too many other school districts are coming to see what 203 is doing and going back and implementing it free of charge.

Having collaborative or planning time is considered a necessity today. You may call it awful but that’s how it’s done in education today. Also, I have to ask you, have you totaled the number of elementary classes, and AMPE teachers, to calculate how much “free time” there is at each school? You also need to figure logistics in. Until we can “transport” a la Star Trek, a teacher would lose a class period traveling as well. Now you might say fine, get rid of the AMPE teachers and have the gen-ed teacher pick up that duty, but that’s not where this community is.

You comment on a new teacher vs. an experienced one. You seem to be making a circular argument. You don’t like a new teacher and an experienced teacher teaching say, 3rd grade. OK, but how do you suggest a school district staff differently then? You then say people should be paid additional if they provide more value or have additional responsibilities. Fine. But isn’t that happening? Do you not agree that a 15 year teacher better be more capable than a beginning teacher, and thus worth more? Again I don’t have a perfect knowledge but it’s the experienced teachers who mentor the new teachers, and I’m sure it’s the experienced teachers on the curriculum committees etc.

As to your comments regarding specialists vs. general-ed teachers, again, you might not agree with it, but I will assure you, it will not be changing. Specialists see specific groups for limited amount of time. A reading teacher could see five 1st graders, eight 2nd graders, two 4th graders etc. Logistically what Dan and you seem to be advocating simply won’t work. Dan Denys talks about a school in Iowa as some sort of role model for 203 to emulate. The district has 31,000 students. This school (the Downtown school) has less than 300. 300! It’s a wonderful school, doing great things. But face it, it’s a boutique school. If the model worked so well, why hasn’t the school district incorporated the concept district wide? Because it’s specialized and the model is not scalable, at least certainly not financially.

As to your comment of the 2nd grade teacher vs the high school teacher. I understand your point, and some sort of differentiation in pay would be perfectly OK with me, but do not sell short they early grades teachers. If you read the literature about early learning, the accepted wisdom is if you don’t get kids pointed in the right direction, especially reading, (by 4th grade I believe), that student is in for a rough road in later years. It’s a lot more than just writing “Good job” on a paper.

Btw I’ll mention that the enrichment teachers are not covered by the NUEA contract, (not sure if they are all full time) but they make something like $18,000 a year, if full time. Seriously. The discussion last fall about enrichment teachers, and the AMPE teachers free time, started with the idea of getting rid of the enrichment teachers. Nobody liked that idea, and the dollars are tiny, so the decision was made to have AMPE teachers do additional enrichment for classes in their field, and yeah give the elementary school teachers some planing time..

Thom Higgins

QE203.org

20% bump -- my gripe is with the system that allowed the money grab out of the TRS in the first place. It was a scam that got closed up...thankfully. Glad to hear that D203 did not do multiple bumps, although we'd have to see the old contracts to see what bumps were there.

The decision was made to have them do additional enrichment with any free time. I am pretty sure that the schools were asked to find something for them to do. Options were extra time so the teachers could have collaborative time -- AWFUL since the schools with free AMPE teachers also had fewer teachers to coordinate. Extra full class enrichment. BLECH! Not even sure what that means. All enrichment teachers and AMPE teachers were rehired, right. So are we extracting items from the curriculum to give the overworked teachers at the under-full schools more time to plan? What???

The district and Union better be doing something about this. The Union better not use this as a bargaining chip.

The fact is that enrollment is declining, we still have tough overhead issues as the grade schools shrink. The tax levy appears to NOT track with declining enrollment, which seems a good way for the district to not be forced to tighten things up.

Dan D is absolutely correct. A new teacher and an experienced teacher are teaching the same material at the grade school level. If the better teacher is the one making more money, do we get money back if our child is in the class with the newer teacher? Or must we supplement the "education"? People should get paid more when they provide more value and have more responsibility. The end user here is the student.

One more thought. The long list of specialists you gave completely misses the forest for the trees. The main subjects -- Reading, Writing ,and Arithmetic -- are being taught be generalists and you talk about all the specialists needed. Wouldn't it make more sense to have specialists for the main topics?

Alternately, at many schools, you could make each grade level teacher responsible for one of those topics and then the teachers could go between the grade level rooms. At least then there would be someone concentrating on one of the main topics.

Ah, the beauty is that in the end a 2nd grade teacher who writes "Great" Neat" Good Job" on the small amount of work gets paid the same as the science teacher who has 4-5 times as many students throughout the day and has extensive lab grading to do and is at the school much longer.

-1

-1

First we need to stop talking “teachers”. I'm guilty here as well.

There are a number of different positions covered by the same contract including counselors, therapists, instructional coordinators etc. If you look at the current year budget you will see the district dropped 31.1 FTE teachers. However, they added 3 instructional coordinators, 1.5 dual language, 1.5 psychologists, and 1 bilingual/speech, for a net of 24.1. Again, please note, the district reduced staff by 24 positions for this school year.

The above, in a nutshell, illustrates why costs can increase and staffing not decline, as much as you would expect, with declining enrollment. As I have stated previously, education is getting more complex, and there is a greater emphasis on providing targeted classes and services in order to give every student the opportunity to achieve their maximum potential.

As to the rest, once again I refer people to an analysis I did regarding this issue. Overview of Teacher Salary Increases for Fiscal Years 2007-2010 As I have said repeatedly in this thread a specific teacher could get a raise one year, based on tenure and educational attainment, as high as 16%. It is also true that for the time period 2007-2010 the average was 5.57%, as well as being true that the net cost borne by the taxpayer (what it really cost us) was 3.62%. Perhaps indicating that “the total increase spread over all incumbent teachers was 5.57%”, is a more perfectly exact way to describe it.

But for the normal person 5.57% average raises over the time frame indicated, with a net cost to the taxpayer of 3.62% (same time frame) due to the savings turnover (cheaper young teachers replacing older more expensive ones), is correct. All this is for total compensation (wages) and does not include medical benefits

I have some more on this but I gotta go.

As to AMPE (art music pe)staffing, some schools share, and the district went through a discussion last fall regarding them. The decision was made to have them do additional enrichment with any free time. If at some point enrollment declines sufficiently then we will lose some of them.

Lastly, I have confirmed that 203 never offered more than one 20% retirement bump. Some districts apparently did.

Thom Higgins
QE203.org

I have 2 minutes..yeah!!!

http://iirc.niu.edu/District.aspx?districtid=19022203026

I am posting this here as a future reference regarding enrollments, total teacher number, and costs.

With enrollment going from peak of 19000 in 2003 to 18000 in 2009 and teachers only dropping from 1109 to 1077 over the same time frame (don't be a Stockdale and squawk "NCLB"), we can see why the average salary increase (not average raise of likely 6.5% in that span -- 7% in my continuously employed teacher analysis) of 3.54% is quite misleading. Mr. Higgins states "that is what the taxpayer sees". Misleading beyond belief. I do not think the extra compensation I mentioned above (health care) went up only 3.54% per year. Also, as a per pupil expense the increase is much larger than 3.54% since the number of students has plummeted. If the district can continue to levy taxes limited by CPI or 5% whichever is less AND not adjust it for enrollment decreases then the district is taking too much money.

The issue is the Basic Units of education. Classroom and School. We can get the staffing correct at the classroom level by saying we need X teachers in grade 3 at, say, Ranch View this year. However, the school unit itself has a lot of underemployed staff. Each school* has 3 AMPE teachers, a librarian, custodian, and multiple support staff. 22 classes or 16 classes, the same number are there. The trick going forward will be to find a way to match appropriate staffing with enrollments as each school continues to shrink in enrollment. And not let the union think that because there are fewer staff members they get to keep that extra piece of the taxpayer pie (cf. 2005 "strike" when referendum collections were larger than actual needs).

-1

Why do the people on this thred continuously try to ignore steps and education levels and their effects on raises?

The rest of us see it as a simple equation: Give me a dollar this year, then 2 dollars next year, it is a 100% increase.

Who gives a flying you-know-what why?

Dan,

Responding briefly,

Regarding this;

On teachers salaries, if you are doing the same job today and 30 year from now, what productivity do you add to society? Do parents get a discount if they have a first year teacher versus a 20 year teacher? Are teachers more heavily supervised during their "break in" years?

You can't have it both ways. If younger teachers are not worth as much, then the classroom needs to be supplemented. If they are just as competant, then they deserve the same salary. Your comments argue that younger teachers are underpaid and experienced teachers are overpaid.

District 203 actually has a mentoring program where experienced teachers work extensively with starting teachers. So they actually do have a greater "cost" than just their salary.

I can’t see where anything I’ve written implies young teachers are underpaid and older teachers are overpaid. You again write quite a bit trying to make the case globally that teacher’s salaries are too high. You are swimming against the national tide here. The movement in education today is towards developing teachers who will have greater abilities, and offering them higher salaries to induce them to teach. The problem is, that desire is crashing against the difficulty in finding the money to pay for it. I suspect that tension will be with us for a long time.

Lastly, as to salary information provided by Dave. He used the teacher’s salary records and adjusted for FTE to get his percentages (this is what the Champion failed to do). So, I fail to see what limitations you are claiming. If you don’t think his numbers are accurate, please tell him so.

Thom Higgins

QE203.org

No sooner did I say we needed someone who could stand up to the union particularly from the private sector did we discover that the District hired a personnel director from the private sector.

Two reactions.

1. She does not appear to have experience with union negotiating (I do not think Naperville 203 needs someone with "international experience", the one confusing qualification of this hire.)

2. Maybe she can sit down with Thom and tell him how the real world views salary administration, even the French. Then again, we need her to get control of this poorly managed function for almost ten years, Thom can go to the library and read for himself!!

One last thought on the union negotiations. People were furious at the 2002 and 2005 outcomes. The Board said they were going to evaluate their performance and report back to the community. Two months later, we asked. "How is the evaluation going?" Gerry Cassioppi (the Democrat trying to pass himself off as a Republican) responded, "That is none of your business. We would be negotiating against ourselves." (At least they would be negotiating with someone instead of being steam rolled twice by the union.)

I know there is a delicate balance between transparency and leverage. However, I believe full transparency and standing up for the community would gain community buy in and if the District ever got to those tough position (declaing the union as not negotiating in good faith and imposing a contract), people would support them.

I advocate that the Board should outline its goals and process now. Then proceed. People can provide input. For example, I think a contract with a one year salary freeze is more than acceptable in today's environment. At a minimum, a salary increase limited to steps only (with the steps being fixed at 1.5% accross the Board) and no increase for the 22% at the top (or bottom--depends on perspective) step is a fall back. Anything more than that goes against the tax cap (forcing deficit spending) and what the rest of the world is getting. (This is my input.)

In many other districts, unions that opt for any increases are being forced to take higher class size and reductions in teachers so the cost can be balanced. I do not think we have enough turnover in 2010 to offset a salary increase. Those days are ending.

This (and improving education as Mr. Mitrovich has been promoting) are the two most important tasks facing the District. These are tough issues, they will take courage to getting it right.

And teachers should agree to a longer elementary day. I think Mr. Mitrovich can fix the bus schedule.

Thom,

I will repeat my two comments. If a July 1, 2010 deadline is set and people negotiate in good faith, I think you and I are in total agreement. And there is nothing inflamatory. PERIOD. In fact, that would refute (and reverse)my image of a "militant" union. If we get to August 1, 2010, the District needs to make a hard decision on the motives of the union.

In fact, I hope you are right. But there are limits to trust. I have thought of many examples to place into this spot, but in the interests of not being inflamatory, I will defer right now.

I should hope we have someone negotiating for us. After the 2005 negotiations, half of the District team came out crying. Literally!! With two of these people back plus a union airline pilot who was voted off the O'Hare bargaining unit by his peers because he wanted to bankrupt his employer, one does get a little concerned.

I really hope you are right.

On teachers salaries, if you are doing the same job today and 30 year from now, what productivity do you add to society? Do parents get a discount if they have a first year teacher versus a 20 year teacher? Are teachers more heavily supervised during their "break in" years?

You can't have it both ways. If younger teachers are not worth as much, then the classroom needs to be supplemented. If they are just as competant, then they deserve the same salary. Your comments argue that younger teachers are underpaid and experienced teachers are overpaid.

Going through the college process, you should be aware that the high fliers in technology are being paid six digits when they graduate--more than existing employees. There are heavy retirements in the oil industry and the oil companies are paying to get competant replacements, more than what they were paying the people who are retireing. The days of experience meaning more money have been left behind in the 50's.

Come to think of it, I made more money starting work than my father. Teachers made almost the same back then as well. Thom, you might have pointed out something meaningful. Salaries might not be increasing particularly in a stagnant, bankrupt state like Illinois.

With lower inflation, it will be difficult to pay people more who are doing the same job. I love how people complaing that the middle class is not getting ahead. It is because pay is a function of adding value. No increase value, not pay increases. (Thom, how are sales commissions with car volumes lower and prices not increasing?)

If you want to make more money, you have to find a better job or form your own company. I think many in Naperville have been discovering this harsh reality for the past 15 years. Most of these people (as noted by the others on this blog) feel that public servants should be happy to keep what they are receiving plus their lucrative pensions. Reality is why.

Lastly, I am not criticizing Dave's numbers. Rather, I am identifying their limitations. These are what he budgets for these categoires. (By the way Peat, that is why the number did not change from the spring).

Dave could derive from the payroll system a 100% reconciliatio of the numbers that he sends to ISBE and are part of the Champion raw data and break out the changes in compensation to the penny. Step, lane, stipend changes, dropped employees, employees rejoining. Could break out all administation (we try to do that by name).

Here are the two raw numbers

2007 salaries.....$102,845,461
2008 salaries.....$107,057,176

The names are all there, they must be on the payroll system, there are only 1,416 records for each year. Better yet, I will hire an intern this summer to compile the numbers if Dave gives them access to the records. Start with 2009 and go backward.

e^(i*pi)

As I remember, I used Dave’s verbiage (TTC), and it does not include health care. I’m thinking he used that phrase to indicate that it included all income.

Not sure I understand your second question.

Allowable levy increase is based on the prior years levy.

To your second post, there may have been flexibility if the district was willing to make the additional payment. I checked my note and I only have one. I’ll get it tracked down.

Thom Higgins

QE203.org

Dan,

The District and the teachers union will negotiate the contract. There is a new negotiating team for the Union, and the District has retained counsel to negotiate for them, so the players are different. Both will be responsible for their conduct, and the results. As far as 2005, there was plenty of blame to go around for both sides. Neither side was covered in glory. But it’s evident you are going to attempt to paint the teachers in as negative as light as possible, and stir the pot again with all you “militant” talk. As I continue to say, this is not helpful. Frankly, if people agreed with your and Davitt’s attitude toward teachers, you both would be sitting on the board today. Fortunately they don’t. As I said previously, you’re heading down the same road you travelled during the referendum, making all these inflammatory statements. I’m not playing.

I love this, The salary dollars in the Champion are 100% accurate since its inception. except in the same paragraph you say, we attempted to eliminate the numbers that were in error to get a better figure. I guess you think it was 100% accurate except for when it wasn’t. Face it, they left people off, and they got the percentages wrong on purpose!!! . Other than that, they were perfect

As for the rest, you’re working up quite a sweat trying to make teachers raises seem excessive. Here’s the essence, (and the problem) of teachers salaries. Teachers have no opportunity for raises based on promotion. If they only get CPI raises for 30 years, a thirty year teacher would make the same salary as a first year teacher, they aren’t going to do that. Most of what you wrote about the district and teachers raises, is smoke and mirrors. After all the time we spent, trying to now refute Dave’s numbers, and claim Dave is using faulty analysis is pretty weak. You never indicated that in your e-mails. Perhaps I should post them. Better yet, why don’t we set up another face to face meeting? I want to watch you to tell that to Dave. Let’s talk about the validity of his numbers, how 203 is the only district, and St Charles dropped the salary concept after he left.

I will do further study on pensions to confirm but I think there is a number of problems with your comments.

Thom Higgins

QE203.org

Another quick thought which I believe to be true. This has nothing to do with D203:

I was scanning some search info and I came across sample TRS worksheets for someone getting raises of 4-4-20-20 over the last 4 years. The worksheet was to calculate the additional payment needed by the district. At the bottom it said something like "Investment returns of 8.5% assumed..." I will try to find a link. Maybe Mr. Zager can verify this.

Here's a link to the TRS and to 94-004 which changed to rules for bumps greater than 6%. (94 refers to the 94th general assembly) http://trs.illinois.gov/subsections/members/pa940004.htm

e^(i*pi)

Mr Higgins:

What are you using for "total teacher compensation"? Is it the same as "total teacher salary"? Does it include health care costs and time off? When I think about compensating my employees, there is more to it than the check they get.

When you claim the taxpayer "only" sees a number (greater than CPI), does that factor in total number of teachers? Does it include the other compensation mentioned above?

One more: Is the allowable increase in tax levy per student or is it total dollars?

e^(i*pi) -- wishing I had more time

THOM's last comments.

1. I will bother Zager about the lunchroom, the 2005 contract I thought paid double time.

2. Contract approach

First, this is what the board committed to do back in 2005.

Second, the teachers union needs to be treated as "militant" until they prove otherwise. If they play the same games as they did in 2005 (and 2002 before, even though they controlled the schoool board), the taxpayers and parents lose. What is wrong with a July 1, 2010 deadline? What is wrong with a back up plan to ensure no work stoppage in August 2010? The only issue that infuriates the Union is that the Board would take away their leverage. All of this is irrelevant if the union does negotiate in good faith and on good terms. But if the Board does not take steps soon, they LOSE the leverage. We cannot, as Thom say, wait to respond to events when they occur, it is too late. That is what happened in 2002 and 2005.

And Mike Davitt did not affect the negotiations. Maybe now that he is not bound and the materials should no longer be deemed subject to privilege of executive session, he could tell what really went on. (By the way, he told me he was disillusioned by the Boards action, but never once would tell the details. Don't over generalize your comments.)

3. Thom, redact personal information and forward (you have my e-mail) what you want to use and I will consent on the e-mails. I think you should also be fair and identify other indices that should be used for a salary negotiation.

Here is why. General salary increases for same people have been 0 to 5%. I think averages are 3% since 2000. So what the ECI means in context to these averages makes no sense.

Now lets agree with where the numbers are. Average employee increases range from 7% in 2000-2001 to 5.5% this year. (We have numbers that show 7% to 9%, but it is not productive to argue over the past numbers.) Everyone but you (and Dave Zager per an e-mail to me) feel that employee increases should be compared to the gross increase, not net of turnover. So while everyone else is getting an average of 3%, teachers were getting an average of over 6%. That is the issue. You also ignored my reference to the Federal salary increases.

And the whole concept of turnover is contrived. The first time I saw the turnover concept was when I audited the City of Chicago and worked on their budget issues in 1980. Their concept was that vacant positions were budgeted as a reduction in salary expense. However, if you fill all of the positions, you get no savings.

District 203 is the ONLY district that takes this view to justify paying teachers double what other employees make (St. Charles dropped the reference after Dave left). And that is a VERY MAJOR assumption. Bad assumption, bad outcome. People expect pay at the market and no employer funds on turnover. In fact, when I was in the private sector, when I replaced an employee with a lower paying employee, my division made more money, but I lost the difference in salary. The position control outweighed departmental budgets. I had a person that was making $10,000 less than the person she was replacing. She deserved a $5,000 raise. The salary control limited her to $750. I made $9,250 more in profit, but had a disgruntled employee. (I also gave her $5,000 more in bonus to make up for the shortcoming in the corporate system to be fair.)

Maybe if you had responsibility for salary administration, you might better grasp what the rest of us our saying. Unless the accusation that you are schilling for the union is true, then you will never admit to another point of view.

3.In case others do not get the information. The salary dollars in the Champion are 100% accurate since its inception. They are supplied by the District. What might be misleading are their percentage increases for districts and singling out the employees with the highest increases due to only working part of a year, etc. I know that when the Champion numbers were used by me, Taxpayers Ticket, Will DuPage Taxpayers Alliance, Mike Davit, that we attempted to eliminate the numbers that were in error to get a better figure.

Dave Zager's numbers are his "BUDGETS". He has not reconciled them to the file he sends to ISBE and is used posted by the Champion. the actual "W-2 File". When Leis complained that these numbers might not be accurate, I said he (and Dave Zager/Allen Albus) had all of the detailed information. Calculate and publish an accurate schedule. So we have Dave's budget's and the Champion information. Dave should be able to give us the salary increase with details by steps, lanes, stipends, etc. with a simple report writer program on his accounting records. If we got the details, there would be nothing to dispute. And you would think the Board would want this information before they negotiate.

While Thom might agree on a general range for salaries, I am unable to agree that with the information supplied by the District that one can whole heartedly endorse what they have done in union negotiations. The outcomes are out of line. Unless you are a teacher or Thom.

And my understanding of the teachers pension was that the pension benefit is based on the best (usually last) five years. However, any salary increase over 20% in those five years forced the District to pay for the extra pension benefit. And while the 20% increases could have been implemented for 5 years, 203 I think limited them to three years. Also, Allen Albus said that one of the major benefits of the 2005 contract was that pension kicks (20% or 6%) were to be eliminated when the 2005 contract ended. The secret 2007 contract extended them through 2010. Out the window with the major benefits.

To repeat my statement. District 203 was well managed until 2000. We should return to the days of fiscal constraint.

I disagree on what it cost the taxpayer ----- Simply put, am almost 6% increase for 4 years IS an almost 6% increase, period!

Obscuring it TEMPORARILY with turnover is an accounting game, NOT a financial strategy. Eventually, it catches up and your imbedded base, as earlier posted, nails the taxpayer to the wall.

The key words here are "imbedded base".

Now, in this day and age (in fact, I wold say for the last 8 years), ANY raise of 16%, regardless of however it is couched, is both obscene and, in the case of the public trough, unethical.

Brief comments regarding Dan’s post.

Lunchroom supervisors get paid $19.00 and hr. period. Whether it is a parent, teacher, or other staff person, they get $19.00. End of story.

As to Dan’s thoughts on contract negotiations, they still read to me as unhelpful and provocative, as well as being incorrect in some places. It is in everyone’s best interest to not inflame the situation, nor for Dan to continually attempt to make teacher’s the villain (should I start talking about all of Davitt’s wonderfully unhelpful comments back in 2005?). Secondly, I wasted way too much time debunking a sorts of charges made by Dan and others over the facilities referendum. None of them came to pass, as Dan recently acknowledged, I’m really not interested in going down the same road regarding the next teacher’s contract. Let’s allow the District and the teachers negotiate the contract, not make comments that will inflame the situation, and respond to the actual events as they occur.

As to the ECI question. I will in the next 30-45 days put up a webpage on ECI. Dan, do I have permission to post the e-mails you exchanged? For now I’ll just comment that I completely disagree with Dan’s position.

Lastly, can’t we just end all this silliness about the Champion being accurate? They purposely deleted teachers because they showed a negative income changes, and they didn’t have sufficient information (or perhaps sufficient desire) to accurately calculate the increases, allowing them to claim raises were higher than they actually were. I will surmise they purposely engaged in this deception, to make people believe that teacher’s were getting larger raises then they actually did, due to their anti public education stance. The fact that the percentages are no longer included, and I also believe they have the full roster now, should tell us all something. I will say that I think they still should separate the teaching staff from the admin and support staff. Currently they are all lumped in together.

Finally, can we please stop this?

. And our analysis has been substantially proven by both Thom and Dave. Dave Zager could provide a very accurate number if he wanted to. He has the most accurate data base. I asked Leis to do this three years ago and he refused. Wonder Why?

Dan's written in the past in terms of 7% to 9% increases, and at times saying the retirement kickers were on top. So no, Dave’s numbers don’t confirm this. Dan can you please stop trying to convince readers they do? Dave provided the numbers for us, so your criticism of Dave here is unwarranted, and I think you need to stop impugning Dave and Alan’s conduct.

Psyche,

If you go to Overview of Teacher Salary Increases for years 2007-2010 you will see the average increase in a teachers total compensation was 5.57%. Because of turnover, the actual cost that you and I paid was 3.54%, which is quite close to the ECI of 3.54% Now, individual teachers can get much more than a 5.57% raise depending on where they are on the scale, but the above numbers reflect the actual average increase during that time frame.

So the truth is, a specific teacher could get a raise one year, based on tenure and educational attainment, as high as 16%. It is also true that for the time period 2007-2010 the average was 5.57%, as well as being true that the net cost borne by the taxpayer (what it really cost us) was 3.54%

-1 (it’s easier)

All of my documentation say’s it was one 20% bump. My understanding was all of this is state driven with no district discretion. Could the other district’s have been be kicking in to make the pension whole for any additional 20's?

Thom Higgins
QE203.org

p.s. Is it time for a thread on Lovie Smith's future?

Did I read correctly that the near Bankrupt government of Ireland made drastic across the board pay cuts and pension cuts for the government workers?

Greece is hoping for a bailout for their socialist failed government systems from the Eu (actually Germany is the only one that is solvent and can spare a dime). Iceland is bust and the UK almost on the rocks with Obama like spending.

We should be paying close attention to the government bankruptcies as they happen. Kind of a smorgasbord of failed big governments.

Actually the governments were bankrupt years ago, just they are running out of other peoples money to redistribute, to paraphrase Thatcher.

Why do some on this thread insist on hiding actual increases for teachers by including such noise as "turnover", steps, etc?

The end result of high individual wage increases it that you create an imbeded base of individual salaries going forward.

In the corporate world, it looks like this:

>>> it is October and a department is ahead (better than) of budget for 10 months by, say, 50K. They have an open headcount they haven't filled from April that was budgeted for 75K. So, in November they fill the open position for $125k/annum. They end the year still better than budget, but they now have an imbedded salary in that once open position that is 67% higher than planned, and it bites them until that person leaves!

My question: Why can't everyone just agree to simply report the TRUE salary increases fro 203? Inother words, can't anyone take the list of names there in year X and their total compansation, then take those same names from year Y and their total compensation, and subract the two then divide the result into year X?

My gut tells me the result will be much higher than the 3-4% advertised.

Anything else is games with numbers!

Truth, please!

I sense Thom "respected" my concept of an outline. Thanks.

Brief responses to Thom's comments.

COMMENTS BY MILITANT TEACHERS SUPPORTING 9% INCREASES

They have not showed up on this specific post, but prevous Sun postings on this topic. And I think I am already signed off on the increase, both gross and net (although I will see if I can get our comparisons for the early years and forward them to you to help you do your analysis).

COMPARISON TO OTHER UNIT SCHOOL DISTRICTS

We should compare and not to just the top four in Illinois as have been done in the past. But we also do not need to bother with the very low paying districts downstate, they are not relevant.

USE OF SAVINGS RESULTING FROM TURNOVER AND REDUCTION IN ENROLLMENT

Potential state cuts are even more reason that these amounts need to be retained by the District to offset those lost revenues. When I say that teachers should get increases only based on the revenue increases available to the District, that means ALL recurring revenue. If you say that the drop in state funding will be $3 million and the property taxes for operations increase by $7 million (I do not know if I am lining up the fiscal years properly), then the salary increases need to be based on $4 million.

Another aside on these state programs. If they are being cut back, the District should look at rejecting the funding and not providing the program. If the state does not adequately fund, we should not offer (and I am not talking about special ed). I have the same concern about the Stimulus funded initiatives. Do we need to keep these programs and employees after the funding ends?

But, in short, the District has to be even more fiscally focussed if there will be radical reductions in state funding. And again, if the resulting salary increase is not sufficient, then hold a referendum BEFORE the increases are awarded.

LUNCHROOM SUPERVISORS

I agree with the $19 per hour (seems higher than the market). My concern is that TEACHERS have first crack at these jobs and their pay (double time of base teaching hours) is close to $100 per hour. More than $80 more per hour. Check with your sources.

CONTRACT IMPASS

To remind the readers, the union in the last contentious contract (2005) refused to meet from April through two days before classes were scheduled to start. Then they threatened to strike. They used ALL of their leverage against the District.

So once again, I note the Board has two alternative options to this process (except collapsing). First, they can take a strike until there is fair negotiation.

The second alternative I keep outlining. Set a schedule upon which negotiations will be held and when a contract will be agreed upon. The Contract should be agreed upon date should be July 1, 2010 AT THE LATEST. If there is not contract at that date (all mediation should be scheduled for April through June 2010), then the District has the RIGHT (not the requirement) to UNILATERALLY IMPOSE a contract.

Teachers still have rights. They can continue to negotiate and come to an alternative agreement. They can appeal the contract through some legal channels (I will admit I am not a labor attorney, but this concept was outlined to me by one) and have the contract modified.

But the ONE THING they cannot do is not show up to work on the first day of classes. If they do that, they have resigned from their job and the District has the unilateral right to replace them. The same way Ronald Reagan replaced the air traffic controllers.

Now Thom always focusses on the last step when the teachers would violate the labor laws, but not on the the fact they should negotiate in good faith before then. The Board (Administration) should not allow themselves to be backed into a corner. The only time these provisions have to be used is against a MILITANT union. I think the burden is on the teachers to show they really care about the community and are willing to live within our means (or ask for more if that is not sufficient).

In short, the previous Boards have been TOTAL pushovers. But in fairness, part of that was done on purpose to keep Weber in office.

APPROPRIATE SALARY INCREASE

This is always a tough issue. And it cannot be swept under the table by citing a simple statistic--this ECI--as the sole determinant of what is correct. While I would like a statistic to point to, unfortunately, this one does not do the job.

In general, I feel that typical employee has had salary increases of 2 to 4 percent over the past ten years for doing the same job as they had done the previous year. And to that end, the ECI would reflect these numbers.

However, teachers, as Thom has now agreed, have had salary increases that are six to seven percent, double this ECI index. The comment by Thom and Dave, the ECI measures the average increase AFTER turnover (the 3.45% number Thom notes).

To attempt to rectify this matter, I contacted two prominent economists in Chicago (that you see quoted in the press and interviewed on CNBC and FOX Business), Brian Westbury of First Trust and Paul Kasriel of Northern Trust. First, neither had a real knowledge of this index. (This debunks the assertion that this index is widely use in economic and financial policy arenas as steadfastly asserted by Thom.)

Brian said the best thing to do would be to call the analysts the compile the statistic. And I did. This statistic is calculated by checking a wide variety of employers and seeing what a specific position was paid last year and this year. He cited a wide range of positions such as a maid in hotel, the Wal Mart greeter, a garbageman, etc. Interestingly, they just drop positions that are eliminated. The statistician acknowledged that this method creates an upward bias on the statistic. When I asked for turnover and more specifically did the underlying data show a large number of salary decreases, he said no. I also asked if there were statistics for type of employee (teachers, garbageman, etc) and the answer was no, it was a general broad based indicator and not designed for a specific profession.

So here are my problem with ECI. First, as previously stated, it has an upwards bias. Second, many positions do not have turnover like teachers that result in lower salaries for the replacement. Third, the numbers do not apply well to all salary classes.

I have two further points. I searched briefly for some statistic that would measure salary increases. The best was the index that the Federal government applies to their employees. The following links to the salary increase memorandum:

http://www.opm.gov/oca/compmemo/2008/2008-01.asp

President Bush granted an accross the board 2.5% salary increase. However, to achieve that increase in Chicago, the increase was increased (funny) to 3.65% (attachment 2). This was based on their studies of the general salary increases in the metro area. And interesting, much lower than the 5.5% teachers achieved.

Second, I would be open to a more statistically accuate and universally accepted index rather than ECI. No personnel department I know grants 6% salary increases because the net will be 3.5% after turnover. In fact, just as the District gets input from the private sector on financial matters, why not check with the private sector on salary administration.

And don't forget the BLS survey of releative pay for professions based on hours worked. Teachers were one of the highest paid professions, more than accountants and engineers. Teachers in 203 dismiss these statistics. But if they were adjusted for the substantially higher salaries in 203, even a higher hour base would not change their position (and many teachers really do not work more than the hour based measured by BLS).

My concern on the last. Two matters. Teachers no longer are underpaid compared to other professions. People should look at all data and not just one number (ECI) for relative pay positions.

CHAMPION WEBSITE

I think that the underlying data in the Champion web site is ACCURATE. Remember, District 203 provided. I (and others) only use the date to compile a more accurate statistic of W-2 salary increases, we do not quote their summaries. And our analysis has been substantially proven by both Thom and Dave. Dave Zager could provide a very accurate number if he wanted to. He has the most accurate data base. I asked Leis to do this three years ago and he refused. Wonder Why?

I tend to use "-1" when I am making a quick comment with minimal editing. For those who read here often, the intention is to help them know that not all the concepts are fully worked out and the editing is not so great.

My above post is a great example.

"There was a fairly large number of retirees ..." e^(i*pi) would have spent the extra time to see that "A number of" requires a plural verb while "The number of" requires a singular verb.

Regarding the number of years of 20% raises -- I do not know what was used here in D203 off the top of my head. A quick search found a Superintendent in Joliet got 3 years at 20% but then they couldn't find a replacement for her so she is continues at the higher salary. Oswego apparently was giving 2 years at 20% earlier this decade. I know several people who got 3 years at 20% in other districts. I guess we could go to (ahem) thechampion website and check for raises of people who retired in D203. Mr. Zager may know what was done here.

-1 -- e^(i*pi) will be try to have the time to make some sense of the good conversation this week from Mr. Higgins, Mr. Denys, and the former teachers who chimed in. There is a lot of good stuff up above.

There is a huge volume of items I’d like to respond to, but I’ve limited time tonight, so here goes on some of it. Dan’s comments in italics

Your comment here; (you use embedded HTML, I use caps) A minor quibble, I never use embedded HTML as exclamation. I only use it to create a link to additional information. I only point this out because a poster was recently banned from this site and one of the reasons was he constantly used embedded HTML code as exclamation, and it drove people nuts.

PE Teachers and librarians compared to market alternatives, but unfortunately underpays math and science teachers so we lose the brightest and the best.

This is how it’s done nationally, not just locally. I suspect you will find broad support for additional funds for a variety of teachers, but I don’t think you are going to get it done by cutting PE and Librarian’s salaries to pay for it.

1. The teachers (at least those militant ones that have posted here) feel that they were short changed in the last contract they signed to avoid the "evil" taxpayer ticket and they want to be "made whole" They want to return to the average 7 to 9% increases.

I don’t see this rhetoric from any posters here, and let’s not spend a lot of time hypothetically demonizing teachers. Lastly, can we finally put the 7 to 9% raises to bed once and for all? Allow me to revise my earlier post; I think a fair statement is that raises in the last 10 years have averaged from 4.75 to 7%, all in, however due to turnover the actual cost to the taxpayer for the last 10 years averaged 3.6% annually. I want to do some more on the estimated numbers that Dave gave me this am and revisit this, so I’m not done here.

2. On the other hand, the empirical data shows that they were over paid relative to typical teachers (I think e^(i*pi)'s baseline of the 75th percentile.

This would be a good subject for actual comparisons to other SD’s (CUSD’s)

5. At least 50% of the turnover savings (replacing higher teacher salaries who retire with lower paid less experienced teachers) should be retained by the District as reserve funds to prevent needs to increase taxes to the maximum all of the time. 6. All of the savings due to staffing reductions should be used for property tax relief. Again, 203 was operating fine until about 1999 when Weber abused the district taxpayers to keep his job. We needed a slight increase in salaries (maybe half of the $511), but not all of it. And the Board should have asked the voters for the authorization BEFORE they granted the increases and spent the district into major deficits creating a lose-lose situation. And The extra money over $511 (initially $750 in 2005, now closer to $900 continues to burden the taxpayer. So as enrollment drops, reduce this atrocity.

None of this is gonna happen, and I don’t think it should. More later, but it’s just not that simple. Look just at state funding of schools. Want to bet, with the condition the state is in, that they end up pulling the plug on the categorical grants (pre-school, ELL, Reading, etc.) but SD’s will still have to provide the services. There also talk about the State again prorating grants ( 80% previously I think) for special ed, transportation, and even general state aid. I think I heard that would cost 203 $3 to$ 5 Million alone. We’re the ones who will have to pick that up.

Eliminate mandates to use teachers at $100 per hour to "supervise" lunch rooms

We’ve been through this before I believe. Lunchroom supervisors make $19.00 hr.

Lastly, there should be a plan for a contract by June 1 or an impasse needs to be declared. In that event, the District gets to invoke a contract and teachers can either accept the terms or leave. And as we know, there are many eager to replace them.

This also will never happen, nor should it. If I was a teacher I would find your attitude of “there’s many eager to replace them” extremely offensive. Threatening them isn’t the answer, and only breeds the kind of conflict that leads to strikes. Regardless, you can’t just replace them all (or a significant percentage) and start over, assuming you care about actually educating kids. You’ve tended over the years to minimize the effect teachers and schools have on a child education, as well as being cavalier about chucking the existing teachers and getter cheaper ones to replace them. I couldn’t disagree more (think Circuit City).

Again, the concern people have is that median salary increases for the overall economy were half of the total amount. Nine years of increases at least 3% over the rest of us is what causes me concern. Even the 4 to 5% net increases cannot be sustained. This is over the CPI in almost every year.

Well, here we go. If you compare the net teachers increases to the ECI (which Dave does religiously) there is very little variance. The vast amount of people don’t go through life receiving the same wage, adjusted for inflation. Unfortunately teachers have the “image problem”“ of being in one position conceivably for 35 years. If you expect them to stick around for CPI increases on their base salary for their entire career, it ain’t gonna happen.

Somewhere in here you talked about the not so maligned Champion data base It’s still maligned to me. Do we all not agree that they purposely deleted teachers because they showed a negative income change, and that they didn’t have sufficient information to accurately portray the increases, allowing them to claim raises were higher than they actually were? Shame on them for being deceitful.

For John Q Public, e^(i*pi) and -1

I agree with the post by -1 as far as the districts potential liability for anything over the 6%. However, I’m pretty confident there was only one 20% bump (you could take it either your last year or your second to last year) but there was never three 20% bumps (at least in schools). I believe the current program sunsets in 2012.

To e^(i*pi),

I believe you once made the comment that you were posting under -1 as well. How about choosing one and remain consistent?

Thom Higgins
QE203.org

Had a strange survey call last night from Mountain West Research.

Mostly a lot of questions about which political party was to blame for what, and which candidates would you vote for including our local Congress Woman. Blaming both parties was not an option in the survey.

The questions were designed to force a Dem vs. Rep response.

What I found unusual was the researcher asking for me by name, which could be off of the voter roles, asking about 30 political questions, then asking me how many guns I have in the house? What? I have friends across the political spectrum that own guns, so I'm not sure where this one was going.

I canceled the question as not material to a political survey and was taken aback by it.

Two more political questions, then I was again asked to verify my name.

Anyone else get a call from this company?

They do have a web page for what ever that is worth.

JQP:

There was a fairly large number of retirees across the state several years ago when state law was changed to limit end of career bumps to 6%. Prior to that 20% bumps for 3 years was pretty standard. This, in my mind, was (and continues to be) pure theft from the system. Anyway, it got changed. Present law is: 40 ILCS 5/16‑158(f)

(f) If the amount of a teacher's salary for any school year used to determine final average salary exceeds the member's annual full‑time salary rate with the same employer for the previous school year by more than 6%, the teacher's employer shall pay to the System, in addition to all other payments required under this Section....

Actually, this law did not limit the bumps to 6%, it just made the district responsible for anything above 6%. So it effectively killed the larger bumps.

-1

Ok, now that we have a handle on the teacher salary increase (although I would welcome reaction to my list including Thom's), what is the new superintendent's concern about educational quality in 203? There seems to be an undertoe of issues.

Dan,

busy day, but briefly Dave says the steps and lanes have been consistent. Otherwise the 3.1% wouldn't be accurate.

It seems to me that the fairest and most accurate characterization of salary increases from 2000 thru 2010 is that they have ranged from 5.5% to 7%.

I'll try to make some additional comments later tonight.

Thom Higgins wrote:

As to the effect of the retirement incentives, whether it’s the single 20%, or the four 6’s, the net financial benefit to the teacher is about the same, so it shouldn’t make any difference on the salary, or turnover, numbers. Also, the last of the eligible 20% only retired last year, so three years of Dave’s exact numbers included whoever qualified for the 20%, not all retiring teachers qualify for the retirement enhancements of course.

Just curious: does the district bear any of the burden of the additional cost to the teacher's retirement system of these end of career enhancements? And by "additional cost" I mean beyond the normal pre-retirement percentage of the teachers' salaries.

-JQP

Not to pick hairs, but the more accurate W-2 comparisons for the earlier years using the now not so maligned Champion data base was between 7 and 9%. Thom's analysis clearly supports the lower numbers.

We don't really know what base, steps, and lanes were worth in the Albus years. The Board would contract for an increase (say 5.2%) and they would spread that around the salary schedule to make sure everyone got something. Some increases were less than the increase, others more.

And the base increase (say 5.2%) did not include lanes, changes in stipends (that were significantly altered during this time horizon), and retirement. And my recollection of the retirement benefit was three years at 20%. The offset was to spread the six percent increase over not four years, but even longer (based on increasing higher steps). I think three 20's will significantly increase the average.

But I will be content that Thom agrees to the 7%, dropping to the mid sixes. The people who would have skewed this higher are gone. And it might not influence future policy except again that the total savings were not realized.

Again, the concern people have is that median salary increases for the overall economy were half of the total amount. Nine years of increases at least 3% over the rest of us is what causes me concern. Even the 4 to 5% net increases cannot be sustained. This is over the CPI in almost every year.

For once, it would be nice for the union (and Thom) to say that teacher compensation was generous. They should thank us for what they receive because they work for US.

Switching gears here, I just read the article in today's Sun about the Menorah to be erected next to the Dandelion Fountain at the Riverwalk, and was wondering if readers equate the two holiday symbols (Menorah and Christmas Tree). Or, is one more religious while the other is more of a tradition? http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/1932426,Naperville-Park-District-Menorah-NA121009.article

I talked to Dave Zager this morning and here’s a little bit more information on salaries going back to 2000. The following are the base increases;

2000-2001 4.0%
2001-2002 4.0%
2002-2003 3.4%
2003-2004 3.5%
2004-2005 3.1%
2005-2006 3.3%

To this let’s add the average 2.8% increase for the steps and lanes and .24 for retirement from Dave’s 2007-2010 salary analysis, call it 3.1%. From this we can approximate that for the years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 the total average annual increase to compensation for an incumbent teacher between each consecutive year was 7%, and for the next 4 years was in the mid 6% range. To this deduct 2% for turnover for a net increase of 4.5% to 5%. This is just an estimate and is not the same as the exact calculations Dave performed for the 2007-2010 time frame based on running ever single teacher.

As to the effect of the retirement incentives, whether it’s the single 20%, or the four 6’s, the net financial benefit to the teacher is about the same, so it shouldn’t make any difference on the salary, or turnover, numbers. Also, the last of the eligible 20% only retired last year, so three years of Dave’s exact numbers included whoever qualified for the 20%, not all retiring teachers qualify for the retirement enhancements of course.

Thom Higgins
QE203.org

Thom,

I meant the 9:29 and I too appreciate your response.

I also agree we need to look forward. And I agree that the current salary program does not work for a variety of reasons. I think you even posted a link to an alternative that would recognize value of different disciplines. The current schedule WAY OVERPAYS (you use embedded HTML, I use caps) PE Teachers and librarians compared to market alternatives, but unfortunately underpays math and science teachers so we lose the brightest and the best.

But until the union agrees to a better system, we have to live with the current system.

And the current system focuses on the upcoming contract. A couple of observations (again, my observations that I feel should be considered to develop good policy--as well as others-- and ultimately a fair contract).

1. The teachers (at least those militant ones that have posted here) feel that they were short changed in the last contract they signed to avoid the "evil" taxpayer ticket and they want to be "made whole" They want to return to the average 7 to 9% increases.

2. On the other hand, the empirical data shows that they were over paid relative to typical teachers (I think e^(i*pi)'s baseline of the 75th percentile is more than fair given the extensive labor pool) and relative to other professions (the hourly rate calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for a wide variety of professoins.) To that end, there needs to be moderation of salary increaes until they are better aligned.

3. We should not be trying to be the highest paid teachers, let New Trier hold that honor. And teachers always have the right to get a job at New Trier. They probably have thousands of applications for each position. On the other hand, they could work in Bolingbrook, Plainfield or Oswego for 20% less than they make in 203.

4. The salary schedule needs to be fixed. Remember that it has "evolved" based on spreading the salary increases among teachers. That is why it does not have uniformity in changes like other Districts. This is important if the schedule is to become a "baseline."

5. At least 50% of the turnover savings (replacing higher teacher salaries who retire with lower paid less experienced teachers) should be retained by the District as reserve funds to prevent needs to increase taxes to the maximum all of the time.

6. All of the savings due to staffing reductions should be used for property tax relief. Again, 203 was operating fine until about 1999 when Weber abused the district taxpayers to keep his job. We needed a slight increase in salaries (maybe half of the $511), but not all of it. And the Board should have asked the voters for the authorization BEFORE they granted the increases and spent the district into major deficits creating a lose-lose situation. And The extra money over $511 (initially $750 in 2005, now closer to $900 continues to burden the taxpayer. So as enrollment drops, reduce this atrocity.

7. Some measure of performance. Test scores are one measure. A more meaningful measure would be comprehensive student/parent evaluation as is done in colleges. Again, the union resists this approach.

8. Make adjustments for educational enhancement. If elementary teachers need an adjustment to teach a longer day, do that. Eliminate mandates to use teachers at $100 per hour to "supervise" lunch rooms and replace them with clerical people closer to $10 to $15 per hour (whatever the market is).

These are my thoughts. I welcome additions and alternative views. But there should be a game plan.

Lastly, there should be a plan for a contract by June 1 or an impasse needs to be declared. In that event, the District gets to invoke a contract and teachers can either accept the terms or leave. And as we know, there are many eager to replace them. In no event can the teachers be allowed to take the negotiations down to the start of school!!

Mr. Higgins:

Thank you.

e^(i*pi)

OWVY wrote
"Have you ever asked a teacher who gives 50 problems why they did?"

Yes, I asked the teacher my son had for math one of the years this was happening. Her answer? Because math is important and that is how many problems there are in the book.
Yes Math is important. But assigning all of the problems because that is what the textbook had for that concept on that day's lesson? Not a valid reason for assigning them. That is laziness on the teacher's part. Most of them repeated the same things over and over using different numbers. Like I said, if you pick and choose making sure every instance or idiosyncrasy of the topic is covered, then 50 problems is not necessary. Honestly because she assigned so many problems, they spent all of class time going over the answers and checking their homework, leaving little to no time for instruction. She assigned homework every day and expected the kids to learn on their own. Unfortunately, this was not the only math teacher like that my kids had over the years.
Reading 50 pages of material in history or social studies or literature, etc. is more acceptable because each page is additional information, not more of the same. Writing a paper for class where you have been given time to research and write is acceptable. But doing the same thing over and over is not. There is a difference.

Both of my kids have found college to be quite easy in the homework area compared to high school. The work has more meaning and none of it is "busywork" like so much of it in the lower levels. Yes there is a lot of reading, but they also are not spending 7 hours sitting in classes every single day, Monday thru Friday. Both have high GPAs and are at challenging schools. Both are able to hold jobs on campus as well as do volunteer work. (For one, tutoring inner city kids in Chicago; the other at a Boys and Girls Club in Champaign.)

OWVY also wrote
"You want it private...oh ya like the car industry & banks etc. Private industry does sooooo well! Right! I agree govt can be a problem but it does not have to be. There are just as many problems in private sector as well."

No where in anything I wrote did I ever advocate for privately run schools. Other people have, but not me. I am a HUGE fan of the public school system. I have taught in two very different public school systems: 204 and East Aurora. I grew up with a father on the West Aurora school board at a time when the school board was all about service and not a stepping stone for other public office or an ego boost. If I ever go back to teaching, it will be in the East Aurora schools where every single day gave me the satisfaction that I was doing something worthwhile and making someone's life a little brighter, even though I was making less money there.

It sounds as if you work at the college level. Tenure at the college level is a different animal than it is in the K-12 level. I do think that academic freedom can be an issue at the college level. It does not usually come into play at the lower levels in the same way since curriculum is much more defined by the district and the parameters of appropriateness is clearer dealing with minors as opposed to "adults". (The exception would be the school newspaper advisor - that is a tough position at that level.) The professor or instructor at the college level has much more input and freedom overall. College is a different system and animal overall in that area, and it should be. When I refer to tenure I am talking only in terms of the public K-12 arena, not college. Tenure is not always granted automatically at the college level after a period of time. More goes into that decision then and more people are part of that decision. But at the K-12 level, it seems to be pretty automatic. At least it has been in 100% of the teachers I have worked with. According to 204's policy manual, section 520.05, it is automatic once a teacher begins their fifth year.

I still do not feel that at the K-12 level there needs to be any more protection than anyone has in any other job. Sexual harassment, racism, and repercussions for sexual orientation can happen in business and other jobs too. If those things occur, teachers have the same protections in the law that anyone else does. Why do we need more rights and protection from dismissal after 4 years in our job than someone else does? Nothing you have said justifies that.

As I indicated before, I would not have as many problems I have with tenure if it worked properly. And maybe once a better evaluation system is in place, one that includes more than 2 "classroom observations" and a "goal setting" appointment each year (or every other year once tenure is achieved), the whole system would work better. I am a firm believer as a parent and as a teacher, that all information should be utilized at least in some way. And yes parent input is part of that. Not the largest part or the most important part, but still a part.

I am not entirely sold on "merit" pay for teachers yet, since I have not seen any system that I feel will eliminate the issues that could entail and be entirely fair.
I do think Another Former Teacher made some good points in their post about lane changes, steps, merit pay, etc.

Dan,

I appreciate your comments in your 9:29 post.

As I've said previously, the past is not prologue. For the foreseeable future I think the ability of any school district to pass an operating referendum is very, very, slim. So, I agree that 203, as well as everybody else, is going to have to live with the existing revenue stream, plus whatever CPI gives them.

As to how to structure teachers salaries, in my heart of hearts, I'd love to scrap the whole steps and lane system and try something else that's less rigid. I sense that's the future in the U.S., but probably not here, at least not now. Could be wrong. It's a good board with a new Super (who I hear nothing but good about), it will be interesting to watch the contract negotiations play out. I suspect there will not be a complete pay freeze.

To Another Former Teacher;

Thank you for the kind words and your thoughtful comments, especially about merit pay. My thought is that for the system to work in education it would need to be more than just what an individual teacher brings to the classroom, but also what that teacher did for the benefit of the whole school or district.

I don't perfectly understand what it all of it entails, but I know 203 has a young teacher mentoring program staffed by experienced teachers, as well as what seems to be a huge amount of collaboration between teachers, teachers doing extensive work with curriculum development, etc. All of that would certainly need to be factored in for the concept to work. Instinctively, I think it could be very empowering if teachers felt their extra efforts were rewarded.

Thom Higgins
QE203.org

Thom,

An honest discussion and a gentlemenly disagreement is what made this country great. I am not "perfect" when I express my ideas and do make mistakes and admit to them.

And for the last four years, I think we finally all agree with the numbers. Going before that period, a similar schedule will show greater increases because retirees got 20% increases instead of 6% more restricted increases and contracts were way more lucrative. If higher turnover offset these numbers to bring them closer to 3%, you might be right on the net number.

But here are MY concerns with this number.

1. The retirement incentives were suppose to bring the net salary increase to ZERO or even savings. A 3 to 4% net increase is a MAJOR MISS.

2. The liberal increases that the Costello/Weber Union controlled board granted increased salary costs at a rate far greater than the rest of America and Naperville. Do people in Naperville make more during this time? (Let me play an Obama, Thom, did you and I make more than the 5 to 9% of the typical teacher? Yes. But there have been some lean years as well. Almost every teacher I talk to would not trade their secure job for a job with more volitle earnings streams.

3. What should the standard be going forward? I have two thoughts. First, the value of Steps should be reduced to 1.5%, the value of lanes no more than 2 to 3%. Working one more year with more education should be capped at no more than 5%. Second, for the next contract year, all salaries should be frozen. No step, no lane, none.

Let's assume you are correct that the average salary since 2000 has gone up by just 5% per year. With compounding, salaries have increased by over 60%. The private sector has been lucky to get 3%. So for one year, nothing. And how much extra money will the district have in the next year? 0.1% more--NOTHING.

Going forward, total salaries should be limited to the increase in revenues if those increases can be sustained by the taxpayers.

This is the limitations of working for the government. You get paid only what they have. If the tax cap increases are not enough, then hold an election. Hopefully this Board will stay with its transparency and not repeat the disaster of 2000 to 2002 where huge deficits were developed and forced a larger tax increase ultimately. If teachers are not satisfied with their increases based on the tax caps, then vote. If people vote no, then teachers either have to accept lower salary increases or go elsewhere where they can make more money.

This system CAN work and education will not suffer.

Do you have a better, more transparent method of dealing with this issue? Put it on the table.

As a former Naperville-area teacher and 203 resident, I have followed 203 issues pretty closely over the years. I have also loosely followed these blogs, and I see that old arguments are re-surfacing for Christmas. In the last few years, I have gotten to know Thom Higgins' work via his website at Quality Education 203, his letters to the editor of local papers, and his numerous posts on these blogs. While I do not know him personally, I believe his support of and insight into District 203 have been largely spot on. While I did not teach in 203, my kids did go to school here. I am proud of that. District 203 has always seemed to provide excellent services for what my wife and I consider to be reasonable prices. Thus, I have appreciated Mr. Higgins' willingness to support the district and its record. Clearly, he was off on some of his figures from last spring -- a fact he seems to have acknowledged. In my opinion, an error like that made by Mr. Higgins cannot in any way obscure his apparent passion and genuine concern for the Naperville community.

That being said, the disagreements that seem to have re-emerged over Mr. Higgins' comments from several months ago obscure a far more productive conversation over teacher pay. As a former teacher, I have long-ago given up trying to defend what I made as an educator (or what I make now as a pensioner). Some will be OK with it, and others will not. I get that. But the hoopla over being paid more than CPI is not in any way new. With our lane changes and step increases, along with any base raises given by a school board in a new contract, teachers have many uniform ways to get raises. The lanes and steps are there to ensure that being a 20-year teacher means more than being a 3-year teacher. (Which in my experience was generally, but not always, true.) Otherwise, teachers would be relegated to essentially starting salary for their entire careers. In lieu of promotions one might receive in the private sector, teachers (and many other public sector employees) get steps and lanes. Of course, I am sure that many people reading this blog already know this. But there are many genuinely good questions that probably should continue to be asked if we can get beyond the emotion of the subject.

Is the idea of giving all teachers the same raises regardless of how good they are sound? It certainly does not fly in the private sector. I can certainly say that there were times that I got frustrated over instances where inferior teachers were paid more based on the system in place. But I would defend the system based on the collegiality necessary in education. Good teaching is far more than about one talented teacher. It is about teachers who teach similar grades or subjects working together to create assignments, refine them and evaluate their success. One teacher alone is not as good as several working together in a truly collaborative relationship. I would fear that, should a more competition-based system be implemented, older teacher would lose any incentive to help guide younger ones for fear of losing out on bonuses. Teachers generally may feel less inclined to collaborate and more inclined to compete. Competition can bring out the worst in people just as surely as it can bring out the best. The private sector regularly shows glaring examples of both. Clearly, the public-sector pay scale system has both disadvantages and advantages. Merit pay systems are increasingly being experimented with in districts nationwide. I will be watching with interest to see how they work.

I think it a far better use of blog space to discuss an issue of honest, legitimate intellectual and philosophical difference than to discuss the exact nature of some act of contrition to be performed by Mr. Higgins for comments that are now several months old. There are more than enough issues both rhetorical and practical to keep anyone interested busy for the foreseeable future. That being said, I hope the teachers, administrators, parents and students of District 203 continue to work together to keep it as competitive a district as it has been for the last few decades.

It said that IL was 4th out of all states so...now look at the school's in IL that were the best & see what is going on & then also in the states higher than us!

e^(i*pi)

As I stated here

Allow me to offer a quick mea culpa regarding some comments I made earlier this year in the potluck blog regarding past teachers raises… It was during my conversations with Dave Zager, Asst. Superintendents of Finance, regarding teachers wage structure, that I apparently mistook, (or perhaps more accurately, started co-mingling) his comments about the net increase in salaries over the last eleven years of 3.54% (that takes into account the effect of teacher turnover) with the average teachers’ salary increase of 5.57% over the last 4 years.

So yeah, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Frankly, it’s been an excellent lesson about me doing better at not getting caught up with all the extreme rhetoric that gets thrown my way. I’ve had to listen for years about teachers getting excessive wages, using the Champion data as gospel, and I simply blocked out all the assorted “bricks” and Champion references, including yours. I did re-read the thread and allow me to apologize to you. You were correct here and I should have spent more time thinking about it.

However, if we are all going to agree that the average teachers raises were, call it 5.5% to 6%, (at least we are off the 7-9% kick!) for the last 3 or 4 years, then let us at the same time also say that net increase in salaries (which is what we the taxpayer actually pays) was 3.5% to 4% during that same period. Lastly, these numbers are "all in" and include base increases, step, lanes, retirement, stipends.

As to you final comment about the latest year of data and you claim of bias, the numbers are the numbers, and it gives a more complete picture. I firmly expect that next year’s numbers to be lower yet. As to going back, I’d be fine with that as well. My sense is, as the net increase over a long time has been in the 3.5% range, the gross number is probably close to the 5.5%-6% as well. The one variable is whether there was more turnover in the past, on average, than in the 4 year analysis here.

Thom Higgins

QE203.org

Fair questions by Thom

The school is the Downtown School of Des Moines. I was referred to the school when I was a candidate. At first, I thought the school was a hoax due to class size. But then in reading the literature on the school, they lowered the class size by making the classroom teacher responsible for all disciplines and elimininating the other teachers. Not doubling the cost per student.

I do not know if I can find the original article, but here are a couple of links I found.

http://www.downtownschool.org/About.html

http://capojac.blogspot.com/2009/11/dare-to-make-difference-tribute-to.html

As to the Champion numbers, they are very accurate, they list every teacher by name and that information is supplied by District 203. Dave Zager confirmed that. These files are the most accurate since they show total compensation no matter what step, lane, or stipend each teacher gets. This is the W-2 file. (Dave Zager indicated that he could not produce a more accurate file--remember, he produced this one.)

HOWEVER, if you would sort the files for each year and match them to the previous year's file, you can get a "compensation increase" for every employee that worked there in both years. Here is where it gets tricky. Some (less than 10%) of the employees have "unusual" increases or decreases. Most of these are caused by teachers working only partial years. For example, if a teacher worked half a year in 2008 and a full year in 2009, his salary would have increased by over 50%. If a teacher resigned, the opposite could have occurred.

To get a better handle on the ACTUAL change in compensation, I eliminated all teachers with a change of greater than 15% or less than a negative 15%. The resulting increase came within a half of a percent of Dave's "estimation" of the gross change (he has not done a full report).

The 10% of the records we dropped LOWERED the increase, by less than half a percent. The number was not HIGHER as you intimate.

Dave Zager could go through each employee and adjust for other factors. But it would not change the number.

Now read your comment today

"I’ve purposely not personally attacked you over your long usage the Champion’s factually incorrect data that they, and you using that data, claimed that teachers raises were 8-9%."

I will let the readers make the judgement. Also, the increases in the years that Dave Zager was notewilling to review were 8 to 9% higher. They were in years prior to his employment. But rest assured, we applied the same methodology to come up with those numbers as we did in the two years we compared Champion numbers to Dave's. We were very close in the last two years, if Dave were to go back to the previous five years, I would expect they would also be closer.

Now I could be further cynical and state that Dave would never want to dig up the poisen from the Albus years. But I do not have too. We gave Albus our numbers and he never refuted them. You ask Albus, do you like the Champion numbers? Answer? No. But you did not ask him, Did the Taxpayers Ticket, Mike D. and Will DuPage Taxpayers Alliance totally misuse these numbers? Not if we followed the scrutiny we outlined above. But you did not ask Albus the correct question and he would not clear the deception from 2000 to 2006.

You need to get a good numbers person for your group. AGain, we dropped 15% of the teachers and the rate of increase went DOWN. It is hard to discuss numbers when somebody does not understand them.

But you were VERY clear that the average increase was 5% or less. And if it were not, you would seek change. Now that you finally agree 9 months later, you go back on your word. Clear, simple. If you are not schilling for the union, why did you change your mind?

USNEWS and World Report today released its 2009 Best High Schools in America report.

Both District 203 high schools received the Silver Award (same as in previous years). Only seven high schools in DuPage County received an award (all silver). Nationally, 561 schools received a Gold or Silver out of 21,786 analyzed.

Thom Higgins
QE203.org

Mr. Higgins:

I agree that if the champion uses only upward trending salary data then it is wrong. Plain and simple. I must say their transgression in the numbers may be worse than yours since they are probably doing it intentionally and with some knowledge of the situation. Note that the spreadsheet I sent you in the spring excised the top raises which seemed too high in order to avoid too much bias from their possibly flawed numbers. I even mentioned what the possible sources of error were.

While they may be cherry picking numbers on purpose, you had a better excuse. You had no idea what was going on. None. Reread all the comments you made last spring about teacher raises. There are some really embarrassing quotes in there from you. If you'd like me to start quoting all of them I'd be happy to. I once made a statement in bold for you so we could move on, maybe I could get the same from you.

I do not agree with Mr. Denys on many things. He did not tell me I was wrong. You did. You refused to read what was written.

Are you kidding me about the percentages? I just reread many of the posts from this spring. You, sir, had no concept of what was going on. I gave percentages several different ways and how to get a more meaningful final number if we had a plot of number of teachers in each salary slot. I calculated raises from champion data. I calculated raise from the salary schedule. All of it was very close to what was being discussed.

More recently, you added in an extra year of data which makes the raises which were being discussed in the spring seem lower. You seem to have no problem with bias when it serves your purpose. Get the year earlier also and see what happens. I can pull up Higgins' greatest hits if needed, but this is not an argument you are going to win.

e^(i*pi)

Dan,
It would be nice if you gave us a link to the school/school district you are alluding to.

.

As to the salary analysis kerfuffle, I’ve purposely not personally attacked you over your long usage the Champion’s factually incorrect data that they, and you using that data, claimed that teachers raises were 8-9%. Now I could start going on a “FULL CAPS” outrage talking about how deceitful it was for them to drop 15% of the teachers off to make the numbers higher, and call you their shill for spreading their incorrect numbers, but I’ve haven’t. It would be nice if you would return the courtesy.

As to the rest, yeah, I added the most recent year as that data was now available, how is that a problem? As to you implication that you and Dave and finalized this on your own, or that Dave didn't provide the additional information I provided is, once again, laughable.

e^(i*pi)

Perhaps you might want to direct your gaze at the Champion and Dan's lack of understanding as well. I find it troubling that you stand in rather extreme judgment of me, and yet you have never provided any sort of analysis indicating what you think the percentages are, nor have you ever commented on the errors by Dan and the Champion. A wee bit one sided, no?

Thom Higgins

QE203.org

I've been told that the H1N1 inhaler should not be used because if your nose is not totally clear inside it will not work and once you have had the inhaler you can not get the shot. Go with the shot (if you can find it).

Thom Higgins wrote: "I didn’t trust your relationship with Davitt and his Napervilletaxpayer website which, let’s face it, scurrilously attacked me and QE203.org."

Do you mean like;

the scurrilous attacks you and your website made on Dave Weeks when he was running for the School Board?

or, more like

the scurrilous attacks you and your website made on Davit, Bush, and Denis when they ran for the School Board?

or, come to think of it,

the scurrilous attacks you make on your website and in blogs woth basically ANYONE who does not fall and worship at the alter of the 203 School Board, the teachers of 203, and, MOST importantly, the UNION in 203!

Because if so, I would like to make a slight clarification/point of note for anyone left reading on this thred:

The "scurrilous" attack you refer to happened over two years ago, while your scurrilous attacks continue to this day!

I have a serious question: Are you PAID to be the personal rotweiler for the 203 Board and Union? If so, how can I get on that gravy train!

H1N1 injectable vaccines still unavailable

Just called my kid's Pediatricians' office to schedule an appointment for a vaccine. This is the third attempt in four months.

It is almost January, and the vaccine is still not available.

When asked, the nurse told me the vaccines (inhaler with live vaccine) just show up at the doctors office without any notice whether they order them or not. They have again requested that they be sent injectable vaccine (dead virus) but have no idea when and if they will get them.

As a last resort the nurse suggested that I call the County Health Department, who is responsible for rationing our government run vaccine program, and see if my kid can get in line.

Obama and his HHS Secretary should apologize and resign.

Give them complete control over the health care system?

Do you find it frustrating to spend so much of your personal time on a subject that will never change?

To Scrooge

Regarding the phrase "good schools support good property values", I believe this is true, but it leaves out a step. In fact, "good schools attract people who care about building good communities which support good property values." Children under 18 and their parents have a huge impact on the strength of Naperville in proportion to their numbers. They collect food for Loaves and Fishes several times a year, volunteer at Feed My Starving Children and numerous other efforts. They support Park District programs, music lessons, karate studios, art and acting classes and many club sports teams. They go on field trips to the DuPage Childrens Museum and Naper Settlement. The 21 Home & School associations collectively pump thousands of dollars back into the community. All of these efforts are supported financially by parents. It is very worthwhile to try to attract parents who value education and have the wherewithal to support the extras, which in turn helps make these amenities available to all. And yes, they do make your house more valuable.

Boy is Zager good. He was EXACTLY correct in his estimate of the 2008-2009 number. To the hundredth of a percentage point.

He should design space rockets!!

Two simple points

1. Des Moines implemented an alternative that seemed to be able to address all of these cumbersome issues that Thom illudes to. In fact, their model is similar to Avery Coonley except for half the cost (since DesMoines does not fund the extras that ACS has and for that matter, the public schools don't have).

And I am clarifying my comment more than backtracking. It worked in Des Moines for K-8, I looked at the 203 K-5 staffing reports. And to clarify, I am not FIRING any teacher, just deliverying the service in a different way. The way it was done in the 80's and before. And I am not advocating "Little House on the Prairie"--one teacher for 8 grade levels. Come on Thom, that is over the top.

2. Get back to the salary chart. Who cares about ECI? We had an agreed upon chart (Dave and I) that you wanted to add this extraneous babble. For those who wish to compare, the numbers did not change. And candidly, how the chart was formatted and the numbers evolved are not that important.

But get back to the basic point that is illustrated in both charts. You said everyone was nuts that teachers made more than 4 or 5%. You further stated you would be opposed to increased salaries if that were the case (I am paraphrasing--I tried to find your exact words and if you do, I would defer to them).

The numbers were higher. And you added in another "lower" year to make them look lower. If these same charts were prepared for the preceding five years, the increases averaged over 8% with some over 9%. OK, we used the Champion. But remember that Dave's numbers were within a half of percent of the Champion numbers as we adjusted them to eliminate as much of the errors that you harped on.

Thanks for providing links to both charts. People can evaluate if your editorial mumbo jumbo adds anything to the analysis. And I did consult with both the Labor Department and three noted economists and I could not get clarity on the ECI. Other than the fact that the economists were not familiar with the statistic. (Curious, how could this be of such use in setting economic policy, does only Bernacke use it?) Lacking solid acceptance and clarity, I am not comfortable with the number or its implications.

We do observe that you modestly apologized for being wrong. But we are waiting for you to stay true to your word to call for revisions in teacher compensation that you said was necessary if these increases were over 4 or 5%. And if you do not, you give credence to the comment you objected to, being a schill for the teachers union.

Mr. Higgins,

I finally caught up with the posts, and I will have more to say later.

The whole impetus behind studying the raise issue is that you had absolutely NO idea of what the raises were. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Zippo.

You had zero mathematical sense of what people talking about. Reread all the posts from back then and I hope you will realize what you were saying was wrong and uneducated. Not just misunderstood. You did not get it at all. I trust you are now educated on the subject.

You now excuse yourself because you state you were confused by what Dave Zagar was telling you. You stated the champion website was worthless -- garbage in, garbage out. Several of us back then even used the data and removed all large raises or decreases. You rejected that number -- even though it was close to what the final number was.

The raise issue was explained to you by multiple people and you continued to fight it to the point that you made the Zowie! comment.

Your mea culpa does not own up to the fact that several of us put extensive work into showing you what was going on, and you refused to accept it. You then met with Dan D and Mr. Zagar and then refused to publish a document about the raise issue as it was being discussed in these blogs. Apparently you wanted editorial control over your lack of knowledge. I am disappointed in you. You have some good things to say in many topics. Your actions in this case are less than stellar.

I'll have some constructive comments about grade school compensation and AMPE later.

e^(i*pi)

Former Teacher...

Don't make the mistake many of my students do...I don't see it or just a few times so that is what it is like everywhere else. I have seen many where this has happened & it is happening more & more with the economy & micromanaging etc.

"Why should teachers be any more protected from this than someone in another career?"

Depends what grade level you are talking about. A great deal has to do with Academic Freedom of content.

"In an ideal world, those teachers would be put on notice and required to improve in order to keep their jobs."

This does & should happen also with Tenure. If it does not then they are not doing what they should but that does not make tenure bad.

"But in my years, not one administrator I have known has been willing to take on a tenured teacher."

Ask elsewhere, it happens quite often. Look at the lawsuits that occur after they are fired. Another set of reasons is as you pointed out even "pretty young things" people are still fired or not tenured because they will not submit to sexual harassment, because they simply are gay etc! This is when evaluation and tenure process is critical.

You may not have seen something but it does not mean it does not happen. I can tell you it is happening though.

If they favor them...chance are it may be. You may not know about it but it can be happening. It is amazing how much I've seen going on & that parents & even the students have seen elsewhere. Heck, when I was in high school our principal was caught with a teacher in the classroom "doing it!"

I think taking aware tuition reimbursement is the worst thing. That is taking away incentive to continue. At the same time it is not the only incentive that should be used. Oh well it should be.

Many have. YES! You can get even PhDs in Educational Psychology. Many univiersities have programs. Even just taking some classes in educational psychology can help.

Again, with parents or students, even the best of teachers can have many problem complainers. Too much homework I find rare. In fact, I find my students talking more about how they never had homework prior to getting to me. How their teachers gave them the exact answers to a test to practice before they give the test. Students who are allowed to use calculators in math. We do not allow them to. That was a real eye opener when our local high school teachers visited us.

That is not the trend now. Administrators are concerned of these whiners & do not want them to whine at all or threaten legal action etc. You have not heard about administrators changing grades even. Oprah even had on a teacher who caught "the best of students" cheating and the board changed the grades back. Then Naperville had the lovely incident of the principal plagiarizing & student so come on.

Have you ever asked a teacher who gives 50 problems why they did? Ask. Again, "too much" can be defined in many ways. How many pages to read. Real shock when you get to college how much you have to read & learn on your own. How often were the 50 problems? Perhaps they were picked from many chapters. Remember to put it more in context here. I can see 50 a lot or a right amount over say multiple chapters.

Well I'm not thrilled with everything either. I think politicians getting involved & parents or administrators defining things is not the way & can explain a lot of the problems that have been developed over the last years but don't blame Tenure for it if they are not doing what they are suppose to.

Ask a college student whether they rather learn in a lecture hall of 250 or 40. They will tell you. I know I liked smaller classes better as a student & as a teacher. I have taught 500 in a class & it is just not a good situation. I have also taught via online & via remote sites and also not as good. You need students who really are disciplined & can learn much on their own.

You want it private...oh ya like the car industry & banks etc. Private industry does sooooo well! Right! I agree govt can be a problem but it does not have to be. There are just as many problems in private sector as well.

HA! Pack 500 in & see how much "chatter" goes on. When you have smaller you don't get that. You know them by name & they approach you more, tell you the problems they are having understanding the material. They come to you more for help, work with their fellow classmates more, you have a much higher precentage of getting everyone to participate in discussion ETC!

So wait...is then home school a smaller learning experience? Individual attention?

"...applicability and consistent use by every school, every teacher, and every child with openness and transparency."

Every school does not use the same methods. I agree some benchmarks need to be the same, in fact at the governor's meeting a few years ago one gov stated in comparing across states it is like playing basketball & one state has the hoop at one height & another state has it at another height. Every child can't be evaluated in the same consistent way as far as type of measure. Again, I suggest looking into cognitive science & how students learn in different ways, thus assessing in different ways are better for them.

I'm all for research...that is my point some just saying, "I have not seen..." is not research!

Dan,

I’m sure it does work at Avery Coonley; they charge almost $17,000 a year and focus on gifted students only. They better have small class sizes and it better work.

As for your proposal, I see you’re backtracking to only K-3 now. Regardless, you still are leaving quite a number of positions out, but more importantly, how would your model handle multiple needs, say gifted and speech, or ELL, reading, and BD? It’s not uncommon for kids to receive multiple services. And how in the world would you staff this?

As for your memory of the salary chart, the document we three worked with reflected numbers supplied by Dave Zager, not the Champion. The additional information I wanted to include (and did) largely, if not completely, came from Dave as well, so they were not my “editorial comments” as you state. Dave has never disagreed with any of it, and, for the record, in November I sent the complete document, as is now posted on the QE203 website, for his final review and he said it was OK. Btw that is when I received the 2009-2010 numbers. I will also note in your 3-23-09 e-mail to Dave and I, you starts off by saying and I quote; “Thom, Good comments. And fair. I feel we are close.” so till the very end you had no gripes about its truthfulness, nor have you ever indicated to me you had any problems.

Our cooperative effort broke down for two reasons;

1. You didn’t want the ECI information, the ISBE numbers, or the Q & A. posted
2. I didn’t trust your relationship with Davitt and his Napervilletaxpayer website which, let’s face it, scurrilously attacked me and QE203.org.

In an e-mail to you on 3-22-09 I stated the following: Thinking this over a bit, and reflecting on your desire stated both above and below regarding deleting information, which frankly surprise me, my strongest comment is that Dave has been wonderfully accommodating in answering all our questions and providing this basic spreadsheet to help us better understand this complex issue.
I will be honest with you Dan, My position is I'm unwilling to spend time fashioning the very narrow document that you seem to desire, especially if it's posted in who knows what fashion, or with additional commentary, on Davitt's website, or some other site, that I will have no control over. We need to accept and agree with Dave's spreadsheet, and the many informative comments he has made in his e-mails to us. You can characterize these facts, and use as much or as little of all the information contained in Dave’s spreadsheet and e-mails as you wish, and I will do the same, posting it on QE203's website.

Everyone can see both the Overview of Teacher Salary Increases for Fiscal Years 2007-2010
as well Dan’s version

As I stated above the additional information I provided (ECI & ISBE information, as well as the questions and answers below) were provided largely by Dave Zager. I stand by the veracity of the document in its entirety.

Thom Higgins
QE203.org

Way to go Thom, you protect our current system.

We all know that Dan D is bitter because we only offer inferior education in 203. All of these people that do not like what we offer, TOUGH.

It is more important that we protect what we have. These teachers cannot get another job at these salaries. All of this competition would only help the kids. They get enough.

At http://OnNaperville.com, we've given advice to the City Council for how to go about raising revenues to cover the budget gap for next year.

Don't like more taxes, but its just isn't realistic to avoid any increase this year. So while it's simple to say - no new taxes, we're already taxed like crazy around here. That's not constructive, nor responsible. Either find a specific cut, or choose the lesser of bad choices in the form of more fees/taxes to pay for the services you want from the city.

We say, keep any tax increase temporary, on discretionary expenses, on tax rates that still keep Naperville businesses below rates in other communities, and when possible user fees make more sense too.

Thom Higgins has reemerged.

I made the comment that smaller class sizes for AT LEAST ELEMENTARY students (today defined as K through 5) and more realisitically K through 3 could be achieved by eleiminating the OVERHEAD TEACHERS or the SPECIALISTS. That was what they did in Des Moines. And I would group the students based on their ability and educational needs. I further clarified that I had not vetted the idea for Junior and Senior High schools.

But as Mike Davitt proposed, smaller class sizes for the younger students would have the most impact. (And by the way, the Avery Coonley reading groups in Junionr and Senior kindergarten were as small as five students. IT WORKED!!)

Now take Thom's last comments. Here are the positions that he thought would be lost and how they would be handled with smaller class sizes.

Principals.............(See Note 1 below)
Guidance counselors....None in k-3
Social worker’s........None listed in K-3
Speech.................Handled by classroom teacher (Note 2)
Reading................Handled by classroom teacher (Note 2)
Gifted.................Handled by classroom teacher (Note 2)
Art....................Handled by classroom teacher (Note 3)
Music..................Handled by classroom teacher (Note 3)
Orchestra..............None in K-3
Vocational.............None in K-3
ELL....................Handled by classroom teacher (Note 2)
Bi-Lingual.............Handled by classroom teacher (Note 2)
Behavioral.............Handled by classroom teacher (Note 2)
Admin..................(See Note 1 Below)

Note 1 I did not see these positions on the staffing chart. If they are, then class reduction would be slightly less.

Note 2 Students of comparable abilities and educational needs would be grouped to eliminate the need for a 2ND TEACHER to pull them out and provide alternative education. They would be grouped for the entire day. Those students with specialized needs would be taught by specialized teachers ALL OF THE TIME and not the current haphazard method.

Note 3 Projects for younger teachers do not need to be that complex and again could be handled by the classroom teacher.

It is LAUGHABLE that people get so wedded to waste and bureaucracy that they can no longer see it. Better yet, what has happened to the students in DesMoines?

And as I stated earlier, let parents choose. Small class sizes, not EXTRA specialists. Larger class sizes with the specialists. Staff based on the parents choice. I also agree with Annonymous, eliminate the monopoly and create charter options (not private schools). Again, let parent pick. Those programs with no takers, they are out of work. GREAT IDEA!!!!

And Bishop Raschke, I did not copyright my spread sheet. But to correct Thom (as best as I can remember the chain of events from NINE MONTHS AGO).

1. I agreed to meet and discuss. And did.
2. I forwarded the initial draft of the spreadsheet. My top line number was taken from the Champion.org with an adjustment for the apparently inaccuarte salary info that we could identify (half years, retirements). Remember, Dave Zager's annual financial reports to ISBE are the source of the Champion.org information.
3. Dave Zager produced alternative average numbers. The were within a half of a percent, not enough to argue about.
4. By March 24th we had the final chart. Thom wanted to include more editorial information that even Dave Zager could not verity and I thought was excessive and even misleading. I was ok if Thom wanted to add some comments of his own after the document, but it had to be his way or no way. So Thom never agreed to the chart. And while the numbers on the QE203 chart might have come from Dave Zager, I do not know if he agrees with Thom's editorial comments. He did not nine months ago.

And as we all knew, Thom now knows that average salary increase is not 3.24% ZOWIE!!!

How long are we going to perpetuate much less accept the myth that small class sizes do any thing to improve the quality of education or the overall experience?

As a child of the 50's it was common in grade school back then to have over 50 children in a class room. Back then there were no teachers aides either, just one teacher doing everything. Anyone else remember all of the temporary classroom buildings added on all over most of the schools to handle all of the extra students? One thing we did have back then that was different were parents who supported the teachers in far more important ways and classroom structure and discipline.

The high school experience was just slightly less crowded in each classroom but we had gigantic study halls, cafeteria periods, gym classes, etc. Moving on to college, well even today there are lecture halls that are filled with hundreds of students and with todays technology many students are watching via podcasts or internet connections. Somehow I managed to survive the educational system with a college education and a successful career. The myth that small class sizes do anything is perpetuated by government workers who want to continue to work less and receive more yet be accountable to no one in terms of personal performance.

The longer we continue to have public education in the hands of unionize government workers instead of turning the entire system over to the private sector we will continue to see bloat, waste, corruption, and bureaucratic nonsense that does little to foster and improve the actual education of our children yet the system will continue to run full steam ahead serving the agenda of the teachers and their unions. For way too long the teachers have misled us into believing that they are the most important part of the education process instead of the children.

A really talented teacher has the ability to captivate and inspire students and the talent of these kinds of teachers shouldn't be limited to 15 or 20 or 25 or even 30 students in a classroom. Lackluster teachers are mostly taking up space and filling up time in the school day. The byproduct is boredom and day dreaming and the corresponding behavioral and discipline issues. We are being sold a bill of goods that smaller class sizes will do anything significant to improve our children's performance if nothing is done to rid the education system of lackluster teachers. Even if many of these teachers were given a one-on-one match up with students... they would still be lousy teachers and the students would still be underperforming. Want to know who the bad teachers are? Want to know which teacher your child should hope to get next year? Ask any teacher. They know who full well who the bad apples are yet they do nothing to get rid of those in their midst who drag down their own profession. They do nothing but protect each other and the system rewards them all equally.

There are some who brag about how good the Naperville schools are yet there are growing numbers of parents who disagree and have opted to home school their children for a variety of reasons. Let's not ignore our thousands of friends and neighbors who are paying the same horrendous property taxes that we pay and yet they have pulled their kids out of public education in favor of private education and the added financial burden of private school tuition. Does anyone actually believe that any parent would pay for private school tuition or take on the added responsibility of home school thinking that their child would be receiving anything less than what the public school system is capable of delivering? Clearly the expectations of these families has got to be that either home school or private school is equal to or better than what the public school system offers but who knows for sure and there is a lot of guilt on all sides as to why the performance of all groups isn't better and transparently understood.

Right now the true facts of the performance of the education system is not openly and fairly studied for the benefit of everyone. Can anyone imagine the public outcry if drug companies studied trials on experimental drugs in the same manner? What we do know has been sifted, and filtered, and scewed time and time again to protect the personal interests of those entrusted with running the system. Just look at the silly games being played with HS the definition of a "junior" as one blatant example of administrators consciously looking for "loopholes" to exploit to make themselves and their schools appear to perform better than actual.

The first step in improving the performance of our education system has got to be focused on developing an information collection and evaluation system that is seamless in applicability and consistent use by every school, every teacher, and every child with openness and transparency. If and when a direct correlation between class size and student performance becomes clearly evident then we will have a strong case to discuss how to properly implement along with the financial cost of making such a change. To accept the financial cost of making such a change based upon the existing flawed approach to collecting data would be foolhardy at best and will most likely only lead to another disappointing dead-end in terms of any real performance improvement.

OWVY
In my 20 years in the public schools, I maybe saw 3-4 teachers not continue in a school due to personality conflicts with administrators. In those cases they did get positions elsewhere where they did just fine. And in one case the admin was let go after a couple years. Personality conflicts occur in every job. People in other careers deal with this. Why should teachers be any more protected from this than someone in another career?
However, in my 20 years, I have seen far more teachers with tenure continue to teach and teach poorly. In an ideal world, those teachers would be put on notice and required to improve in order to keep their jobs. But in my years, not one administrator I have known has been willing to take on a tenured teacher. They just don't want to deal with it. It is not a matter of just deciding the person cannot come back to teach and firing them. There is a process that has to be followed. Unfortunately, no one seems to want to go through that process. I have a full understanding of tenure law, however, I also have a view of what I have seen. I have never seen a teacher get let go after reaching their tenure year, even if they were a poor teacher. As I said, one principal I worked for let those teachers attain tenure and then had them transferred.

As far as "pretty young things", I never indicated that those girls would do anything to get their tenure. I merely stated that the principal favored them.

As far as stipends for training, I did not talk about that beyond National Board. As I said, the experience I have had with teachers who attained National Board certification has not been positive. I have seen some poor teachers manage to jump through enough hoops to attain that status. I do believe there should be some incentives for continued education, and I believe advancing on the pay scale is one. However, districts are already eliminating tuition reimbursement. And as long as the state requires continuing education for recertification, then districts will not need to offer the same level of incentives for this as they have in the past. This is just a statement of the situation now. Not an opinion on whether that should be done or not.

I will agree that learning theory is valid as a study for an advanced degree. Unfortunately, I can't think of any teachers I know that have ever gotten degrees in that area. Are there any local universities that offer a degree in that area?

As far as parents and students being involved somewhat in evaluating, I do think it is fair to use as one small piece of the puzzle. I am not talking it being the only piece, just one piece. Yes, some kids are over involved, but also some teachers give far more homework than is necessary too. But students and parents are an integral part of the schools. And I do think if a teacher is a good teacher, those few problem parents or students will not become an issue here. I can tell you personally, my daughter was probably one of the most astute evaluators of her teachers. Had any administrator talked to her, they would have had a clear understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of those teachers she had.
Yes I had some parents who whined; I also had many more parents who were absolutely fantastic. The ones who whined did so about everything and were in the minority. They were the ones that everyone knew in the school and everyone, including the principal, took their whining with a grain of salt.

When it comes to homework, I have never been an advocate of tons of homework. My son had a math teacher who would give 50 problems for homework. I believe that was overkill. Kids can demonstrate that they understand the concept in 20 problems or less. As a teacher, I would pick the problems I wanted my students to do from the page based on the challenges in the problems. Sometimes the homework assignment might look like this: page 35 problems 1-4, 6, 9-11, 15, 18-21. I felt it was better to pick out good problems for them to do that would expose them to all the intricacies of that concept, than it was to have them do every problem on the page. If a kid does not understand the concept, then 50 problems will not help them with that, additional instruction will. And 20 problems is plenty to demonstrate their understanding or lack of it.

All in all, I feel the current system is not working well. Changes need to be made. Based on my experiences, tenure and evaluation are two areas where changes need to be implemented. And based on my experience, I am not impressed with National Board certification.

Bishop Raschke

Regarding your comment about not following through, I get tired of beating a dead horse. But OK, one last time, (hopefully), let's examine Dan's proposal;

3. Looking at the staffing report e^(i*pi) posted, notice that for every CLASSROOM teacher their is another "OVERHEAD" teacher or specialist. How about another approach that Disney helped implement at an elementary school in DesMoines, Iowa. Make the classroom teacher responsible for all specialties (gym, music, etc). Students with special needs would be grouped for same attention.The OUTCOME? Classroom sizes could be reduced from the average of 24 (I am guessing, but close), to 12. As a parent, that would be a wonderful tradeoff. And that is how the private schools do it.

As I said in a previous post there would be no support staff (including principals, guidance counselors, social worker’s etc.), or any kind of specialty teachers (speech, reading, gifted, art, music, orchestra, vocational etc.). At best, it’s going back to the one room school house model. The movement in modern education today is to educate every student to the maximum of his potential. For many kids this means specialized services, and specialized staff.

Sorry, this is laughable;

It looks like Higgins also plagerized Dan D. on his web site on salary increases. ZOWIE!!! I wonder if Dan copyrighted the spread sheet? And no mention that Dan promoted the idea last March.

If you will go back to a prior blog thread you will see I was the first person to suggest a meeting with Dave Zager here on March 5th. Gentlemen, I know you are having great fun here but as we all want to know the truth allow me to offer the following:
Either, or both, of you make an appointment with Dave Zager to discuss this matter. I will arrange my schedule to fit yours. We both make our case with whatever documentation we choose and Dave tells us who's correct. We then post the results of that discussion here in the blog.

In response to my offer, Dan e-mailed Dave Zager the next day, and at some point Dan and I met with Dave, (Dan’s acknowledgement of this ) and we three exchanged numerous e-mails as well. More importantly, it was Dave Zager who provided all the salary data as well as the majority of the information that I posted on the QE203.oeg website; Overview of Teacher Salary Increases for Fiscal Years 2007-2010 Dan used the exact same data as well.

So, no, it wasn’t Dan promoting this, it was me, nor was it his data.

Thom Higgins

QE203.org

Former Teacher...

I too am beginning my 20th year teaching...

Concerning Tenure...you have been very lucky then to not see people fired just because they do not massage the egos of administrators! And Tenure does not protect teachers who have burned out & are horrible, it just makes sure you can document and PROVE this incompetency rather than just not agreeing with the particular pedagogy of an administrator. You need to read up on Tenure law. It is also not a given to achieve tenure. Your right, it does lead into evaluation and administrators do not know what are good measures of evaluation. Some do not know the right questions to ask and do not know what standards of quality to use.

Teachers are also pressured to use "the newest methods" which many times turn out later to be not the best. For example it used to be in the past you did not grade for grammar & spelling...well I may be a good example of the product of this! Now at the time, if you did not use this "new method" you may be evaluated poorly. Now if you were using it you would be evaluated poorly for using it.

If you do not offer some stipend teachers are not going to seek out updated training. Travel expenses, books and tuition, and where are you taking these classes? Is it a good quality graduate course or just at the rate of what is being stipended. You get what you pay for!

What parents are you going to ask? Again, you should know you have 30 students & some will love you & others will hate you. The customer is not always right. You have to have had parents who whined about everything & anything. Do we ask the parents who say their child does not have time to do homework because they are overloaded with all kinds of extracurricular activities?

I do agree the Masters in content area is important but I would say more important is Learning theory. It is very different to get a degree in more advanced math than learning about brain development and different methods of teaching math. That is neither content area nor administrative degrees. A school using pizza parties, duct taping the principal to the wall or giving a car for perfect attendance is a school that does not understand learning theory and intrinsic motivation.

This is why it is much more "complex" and need much deeper understanding of how students learn to really even begin to tackle this problem.

I agree an administrator coming for 1 or 2 classes a term or year is not enough to evaluated a teacher. Also just "observing" is not enough. To really understand they need to speak with the teacher & teachers as a whole, to see why they are doing what they are doing in the classroom.

I totally agree with your comment on "Pretty Young Things" who are not tenured & will do anything to get their tenure!

What happened to Higgins? He berates Dan D., but then never follow through. The small classroom size makes way too much sense for 203 to implement. Also, it would make the parents be happy and put way too much pressure on the teachers to perform.

It looks like Higgins also plagerized Dan D. on his web site on salary increases. ZOWIE!!! I wonder if Dan copyrighted the spread sheet? And no mention that Dan promoted the idea last March. He must really be afraid of Dan D. By the way, I did not know that salaries went up this much, more than the union told me.

I do volunteer work for Suicide Prevention Services. They are only one of seven agencies in the whole country. And they are right here in Batavia. They have a 24-hour call center, counseling, support groups, depression screening.. they offer so much and get paid very little. It's mostly volunteers.

I want to make a public video of loved ones who have died by suicide. The holidays are hard. And to see a video of other people's loved ones- maybe people will see there are others. That they aren't alone. It will visually unify us.

The completed video will be posted on the Suicide prevention services Facebook page. That way, maybe people will become fans- and again- we will become unified. Maybe they will participate or volunteer- and Suicide prevention services will become bigger and stronger.
A Win-Win.

HERE IS WHAT I NEED FROM YOU: I need you to each contact your local newspaper. As a local resident. Letting them know we are doing this. It's free. It's a gift to the community. That's it. One email.

Here is what I wrote to the Kendall County Record, my local paper:
You can use this as a template and change it up if you want to make it your own, with your name at the bottom. You can use my words exactly, if you want. -And sign your name. And add your city.

Hi Kendall County Record,

The holidays are hard for ones who have lost loved ones. Particularly those to have lost a loved one to suicide. Whether a recent loss or one from a more distant past, I'd like the opportunity to visually unite us. We are making a video for all of us.

Those who have lost a loved one to suicide are called: Survivors of Suicide. The road to coping is long and painful, but it's ever so important to know that survivors are not alone. We are making a video. Of all of the loved ones we have lost to suicide. It's being made for Suicide Prevention Services. Here is a link to their Facebook page, where the completed video will be posted. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Suicide-Prevention-Services/46139089034?ref=ts

Anyone can submit. It's completely free. Submissions can be emailed to: spsfv@hotmail.com. We are hoping to have the video completed by Christmas, and posted on the Suicide Prevention Services facebook page.

Submit a photo and please add the note: "I give permission to have this photo used in a video for SPS." Send to: spsfv@hotmail.com.

For more information and support groups provided by Suicide Prevention Services, please visit: http://www.spsfv.org

It's such an important time of year for people who have suffered a loss to suicide and those who are suicidal to know that there is help. They are not alone. We are here. And we care. Additionally, there's a 24 hour hotline for anyone needing to talk: 800-273-TALK. Also 800-SUICIDE.

Very Truly,
Jen Slepicka
Yorkville Resident

Thom,

All of the children with the same special needs would be grouped to give them very personal attention.

Thom, you rely on all of those state numbers. If class size does not explain the difference between Lisle and Naperville (although if Thom's numbers are right, it does explain 70%), the difference is that Lisle's salaries are ten to twenty percent higher? I doubt that.

Maybe all of these state numbers are suspect as well as anyone trying to draw comclusions from them (Like all of the QE203 "data").

A-1,

I don't disagree with most of what you say. I WILL point out that our kids perform better on national tests in our H.S.s than when they are in elementary school (again, as a group).

This does not mean they are bad, not great, etc. ---- just that there is a "perk-up" once they hit H.S. The data on longer school days is pretty strong.

I totally agree with your take on the system. I don't mind paying a fair share, and I don't mind paying for a great system. However, when bus schedules (gosh, is that a tip of the hat to the union contract via the 203-ran buses?)directly affect our kids' education, and when a system continually increases its spending beyond anything near inflation, and when a system goes from well below state averages to over them in a short decade or less (especially a system as large as ours which should have stupendous economies of scale), then SOMETHING IS WRONG!

As you said, until the lemmings catch on, we are all caught in the cycle.

Say it with your votes at the next School Board elections!

Scrooge –

I have to respectfully disagree. I believe that maintaining your home is but one factor in determining a home’s value along with location (to train, downtown, and other amenities) and schools. While you may not be interested in schools promoting or protecting your home value, they do it anyways. Many people consider school quality in their home purchases and are willing to pay more to have little Jimmy or Jane go to a good school.

More to the point of your question, though, is that generally our tax system is not a la carte. Yes, there are fee-for-service items like car license plates or pet licenses but other items are deemed to be good for society as a whole and those you can’t opt out of. You can’t choose to not pay for public schools just as you can’t choose not to pay for our national defense even if you’re a pacifist.

T.B.

Wow! Thom NEVER AGREES with Dan.

How can Des Moines implement lower class sizes and Naperville cannot. We have that many more special ed students? Does Iowa have different education?

Wouldn't smaller class sizes mean special services for all students? Why is Thom so negative?

Dan,

In all kindness, your idea of getting rid of all support staff and specialty teachers in favor of having smaller class sizes with the classroom teacher assuming all teaching and support duties is just plain nuts.

I also think you just don’t appreciate how many students receive some sort of specialized services (and not just special ed). The overwhelming majority of these students do not require a specialized curriculum, but rather receive individualized instruction for a limited amount of time daily or weekly. There is no reason, nor the physical ability, to segregate students in the way you propose.

Lastly, you are incorrect regarding Lisle spending more only because the class size is lower. 203 has an average class size of 22.5 and an OEPP of $10760. Lisle’s class size is 18.2 and they spend a whopping $15603. But they are so small a SD (1500 total students) it’s not a matter of preferring smaller classes and adding teachers, but rather that’s all the students they have to fill classes.

If there was a direct correlation to class size and cost, then 203 would be spending $12,621 per student using Lisle’s numbers.

Thom Higgins
QE203.org

Psyche,

When (and IF) our school districts start building the curriculum based upon the maximum achievable educational potential and stop basing what they are doing on state mandated minimums we will start seeing true educational excellence in our school districts. Minimum number of hours each day, minimum number of school days each year personally benefit the government workers more than they benefit the personal educational benefit of every school child.

The fist mistake we made 200 years ago was to put the public education of our children in the hands of government workers. Sadly that eroded over time to the point where we now have unionized government workers that have a stranglehold over the education system. Our forefathers never envisioned this kind of mess and now we are paying the price for their shortsightedness. The first real and true step that needs to be taken towards achieving educational excellence is to privatize the entire school system.

When we have a government run system that is incestuously driven to benefit the insiders without any competition in the marketplace it becomes accountable to no one, bureaucratic, bloated, wasteful, and complacent. There isn't a single property owner in Naperville, residential or commercial, that can look at their tax bill and say what we are doing isn't freaking nuts. And yet we continue to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into a black hole that is mostly driven by parents with school age children who hold themselves emotional hostages thinking if they dare do anything different or upset the apple cart in any way that their child will pay the price of revenge in the hands of spiteful teachers. And the teachers and their union mouthpieces exploit this for every inch it is worth.

Every single household in Naperville can continue to be lemmings and let the education system run roughshod over them and control their live and finances or they can grow a backbone, stand up, and start demanding permanent change and reform. Granted much of the corruption and waste has to be changed at the state level. Regardless, there is much that can be done locally and so far we haven't even started. A whole world of opportunity exists. The only thing we need are parents who care enough to demand change.

How to fairly implement an incentive pay system?

Goldman Sachs does not seem to have a concern. Bank of America wanted to be freed from the pay czar.

It comes down to strong management and mission of the organization. Agressive leadership.

In short, a CULTURAL CHANGE.

What I also see in these posts are the results of ineffective managers (like the cute things). Plans will fail with their incompetancy.

Psyche

Ultimately, it's a cost issue. If you want longer Elementary school days it would require spending more on bus service and readjusting the JR. High and High school schedules as the problem is they all share the same buses. In the past there has been talk of extending the elementary day and making those adjustments but the district has yet to decide if it's workable, and of enough of an advantage to justify the additional cost.

More importantly, I disagree with your contention regarding elementary school testing. If you read my analysis of Top CUSD’s and Top HSD’s (or go to the ISBE report cards yourself) ISAT (elementary) test performance tracks tracks closely to ACT scores.

A couple of clarifications to Thom's "interpretation" of my comments.

1."characterization of your position is a teacher is a commodity". My point is that the UNION does this, not me. If individual talents and contributions matter, they are not being dealt with by the current system. And while there are many fine teachers in 203, THEY have opted to be treated as a union commodity.

Yes you are wrong, the comment you referred to related to the releative success of students besides teachers. I have been consistent on these pages that the most "effective" teachers probably are the lowest paid working in poor urban districts. Naperville would attract more than adequate numbers of highly qualified teachers at lower pay levels.

2. "Classroom specialists" Let me clarify that most of this implementation would best be implemented at the elementary (k-5) level. Band programs don't start until 4th grade. They do not need specialized PE. They would not need "gifted teachers" or most special education (I will stay away from the more chronic cases that would continue). Why? Because instead of spreading 25 gifted students among five classes of 25, all 25 would be in two classes with their own individual teachers. Same for ESL to the extent feasible (although those classes could be combined accross schools).

When I mentioned this to a 203 Board member yesterday, the member commented that was how we were educated for 100 years, one teacher, not support specialists. But if those like Thom prefer this current "complex" structure, fine. Let parents choose between schools with one teacher, 12 student class sizes and other schools with 25 students run the current way. Let's have competition decide the best method of delivering education.

I will also clarify that I looked at this at the elementary level only, I will let the proferssionals check the application of the top levels.

3. "Special Education" Thom, I would stay away from your comment about my former running mate. Let's suffice it to say the inclusion does not work for the most severe cases. In other cases when students have learning disabilities, it seems unproductive to put them in a "regular" classroom with a dedicated aid. I support inclusion by keeping those children who can interact in the same building (as was started in the 60's), but mixing them with regular students in ALL instances might not work. Again, parents of "average students" complain that this inclusion really hurts their students since they are held back and are not given the pullout opportunity like he gifted students.

4. "Differentiation in Pay" What is Thom saying? The current union one pay for all based solely on tenure and education seems flawed. Besides the elementary/high school split, there are other shortcomings such as underpaying the more technical teachers such as math and science.

Again, there is no LEGAL reason that 203 could have TWO salary scales, one for elementary teachers and one for high school teachers. That is the solution if the only salary flaw for 203 teachers is that they underpay high school teachers and lose them to the higher paying high school only districts (or if 203 high school teachers feel short changed and are unhappy employeees).

Is there a reason a high school teacher should be paid more? Is their job more demanding? Do they put in more hours? If not, then high school teachers in high school only districts are overpaid and those in elementary districts are underpaid. Is there parity in 203 among the classes of teachers? Because of the short elementary day in 203, are elementary teachers being overpaid compared to their high school counterparts? Compared to other schools?

5. "Short School Day" I am tired about the bus schedule. I will repeat, change the bus schedule instead of short changing students. It cannot be that hard.

6. Spending differential among school districts. Yes, Lisle is higher, but they also have lower property taxes (more diverser tax base than 203). The reason they are higher, smaller class size. They could have probably downsized more and lowered property taxes. The Districts that spend the most (Roundout, I think) have almost no students and 90% of the tax base is not residential. The people vote for lower class sizes instead of lower taxes. But again, their taxes are half of ours.

As 203 enrollment declines, we will face the same choices.

Hey, am I imagining it or did Thom Higgins, above, just rationalize a short elementary school day because of a bus schedule? Is he serious? If this is indeed true it is a very sad comment on the leadership of the school district.

Anyone who wants to do the look-up will find that one of the single, strongest, most measurable points of effectiveness in elementary school is the length of the school day.

Could this be why our children on 203 do so much better in H.S than they do in elementary school on nationsl testing As a group, not individual schools)?

Argh! The joys of HTML. Two of my embedded links in a previous post were broken. These should work.

Denver Merit pay system:

ProComp

Educator Compensation Institute plan;

A PATH

I am glad to see that District 203 is finally doing something about the removal of students who don't live in the district. Officials have been approached before about this situation and responded that they couldn't prove anything. I don't know what the impetus was but it is about time!

Thom wrote in regards to merit pay "The response was pretty much universally positive, with the typical concerns about how to fairly implement it."

That has always been my concern. I have worked for a principal whose favorite teachers were the "cute young things" and had no clue as to what was actually happening in classrooms. My sister has kids in a neighboring district. Their school has a principal who also is ineffective and has no clue what his teachers are doing. So when she has had to fight for the IEP for her son with Asperger's to be followed, he has kowtowed to the teachers who don't want to follow this plan, My son had a math teacher that was lauded by the principal who never taught a thing in the classroom - just assigned homework and went over it with no instruction ever taking place. Yet she was considered a great teacher by the admin because she was so "school spirit" oriented and knew how to talk a good talk. Her actions in the classroom however were not indicative of good teaching. (I worked in the building at the time and was actually able to observe her class.

How do we make sure this is implemented fairly? What criteria will be used to determine who deserves merit pay? I will look at the programs listed above an see how they do things. But I will always worry about favoritism. Having taught long enough I know that can be an issue in schools. And I have seen excellent teachers deal with personality conflicts with principals too.

I do think this may be the wave of the future, but I do have concerns that it could become a fiasco if not properly implemented.

Anonymous on December 5, 2009 6:01 PM
Anonymous ONE,

Sorry, schools are one of many factors in home values. Overall one must look at the overall quality of the housing stock, the style, the age. Then there is the demographic of the property owners. What type of work they do, the household income. Even ethnic and racial makeup play a role... sounds in the realm of racism, but let's be honest and not ignore that it is a factor.

_____________________________

Anon. That's why I said the following, "I'm not saying it's the only factor, but IMO the schools are the major factor that set each of these three apart." If you want to look at a good comparison, take a look at homes in River Run neighborhood in D204 in Naperville, and the South Pointe neighborhood in Plainfield's School District, but still in the city of Naperville. The homes, and demographics of the owners are almost identical. Yet the homes in River Run are of higher value. Why? The only difference is the school district. River Run in 204 and South Pointe in Plainfield School district.

Both are in Naperville's city limits, but both are in different school districts.

There has been some discussion by e^(i*pi) and Dan Denys about how 203 teachers salaries are structured vs. separate Elementary and HS districts, how the pay schedule itself is structured and whether Master degrees by teachers improves scores. I’d like to give a bit of a global perspective.

District 203 is a unit school district with one pay schedule for all teachers, irrespective of grade taught. Illinois also allows separate Elementary and HS districts and two details are noteworthy. Separate districts pay HS teachers (typically significantly) more than Elementary teachers, and separate Elementary and HS districts combined spend more per pupil than unit school districts such as 203 and for that matter 204 as well.

With those savings comes some limitations, Dan likes to harp on the fact that 203 has a short Elementary school day. There is only one reason for this, and that is the district (to save money) shares the buses between all three school types and something’s gotta give.

A poster here was talking about economies of scale kicking in. When you compare the Chicagoland area school districts, the CUSD’s spend less than the separate districts combined and the larger CUSD”S spend less than the smaller ones. Great example is just next door in Lisle. Even though it’s a unit school district they spend something like $15,000 per student vs under $11,000 in 203. District 203 has partnered with the city of Naperville, and District 204 on major systems purchases to save money.

There is a train of thought that thinks there should be salary differentiation between the grade levels taught, I believe both e^(i*pi) and Dan feel this way. This discussion easily slides into talking about merit or performance pay. From a global perspective I believe that combined school districts are the norm nationally, and all/most? have equal pay schedules for K-12. I also believe that the step (years worked) and lane (advanced degrees) structure is the norm nationally as well. If you want to read a exploration of District 203’s pay structure I wrote Overview of Teacher Salary Increases for Fiscal Years 2007-2010 that will give you a good understanding of pay schedules.

One of the big ideas in education today is merit/performance pay. The Denver school district has the most well known, longest running experiment in merit pay called ProComp

Another interesting system being touted is called A Path from the Educator Compensation Institute

There is significant momentum building for alternative compensation programs, from President Obama and his Education Secretary, to education think tanks and down to the local level. It must be noted that these are not cost savings plans, but rather a way to attract and retain highly talented teachers with higher salaries The Denver school district passed a referendum for an additional $25 million annually to fund the merit pay.

QE203.org asked last spring’s school board candidates about merit pay here, question 7

The response was pretty much universally positive, with the typical concerns about how to fairly implement it. Jackie Romberg’s answer reminded me that the new Superintendent has a performance clause in his contract, so that bodes well.

Personally, I think this is the future and would like to see the district explore it next spring with the teachers. And no, I'm not advocating for an additional $25 million in funding. I do worry about the implementation though. District 203 is a very unique curriculum process that relies on a high degree of cooperation between teachers.

Thom Higgins
QE203.org

Dan,

I hardly know where to start.

Globally, I think a fair characterization of your position is a teacher is a commodity, who should be able to provide both the general education as well as the roles currently filled by a host of specialized teachers (what you refer to as inefficient, wasteful, overhead teachers). Based on your previous comments, it's also probably fair to say you don't feel teachers or schools matter that much, if at all. I think your comment was that it is the family and the opportunities and experiences it provides that is the difference in how well a child succeeds. If I'm wrong here please tell me.

Let's regard this statement of yours;

."Complexity of education today" Gibberish. These complexities were initially created by wasteful state and Federal grants that mandated "supplemental programs" rather than efficient programs. Take ESL (English as Second Language). A separate (ADDITIONAL) teacher pulling children out of their classes to get extra English instruction.

OK let’s play this out in the real world.

If we make everyone a teacher and get rid of all those inefficient specialists, what functions will every teacher now have to be proficient in?

For Elementary:

ELL (English Language Learners)
Early Childhood (pre-k special needs)
Gifted
Special Ed
Special Ed - Learning behavior specialist
Special Ed - Multi Need
Speech
Reading
LRC (Librarian)
Band
Orchestra
Art
Music
PE

For Jr. High add in;

Foreign Language
PI (Project Idea)
Social Work
Counseling
Psychology

For High School add in;

Business
Vocational Education
Nurse (I’m assuming these are for the medically fragile students)

Now, I’ve missed a number of other positions that I can’t make out the acronym for. Regardless, the above reflects the complexity (my word) of education today. If you think that teachers can master all this, let alone transmit it to all students, well, best of luck.

Heck, let’s just take your comment about ELL;

If we went to smaller class sizes, all of the ESL children would be in one class. That would eliminate the "complexity" and replace it with "productivity". But then ALL teachers would have to work instead of almost half having very limited accountability. And the "progressives" (LIBERALS) will yell inclusion that holds back the other 80% of the students so all proceed at the pace of the lowest!!

Why would we want all ELL in one class? You can’t tell me that having kindergartners up to Fifth graders in one class, for all day is an improvement. To me it’s reminiscent of the rural one room school houses of the past. How can you claim this is more productive,(your word) than say Beebe having 26.5 general ed teachers, each concentrating on a specific grade, with two ELL specialists working on specific students.

Let’s go a bit further with special ed and its costs. The regular ed budget for this year is approx $85 million. The special ed budget is almost $22 million. This “socialist, inclusion oriented, inefficient, limited accountability” program (all your adjectives) on a cost basis is hugely more expensive on a per pupil basis. There are say 18,000 students this year. There are about 650 students receiving intensive special ed services and say 1800 students getting some kind of service. Do the math. It's really expensive (inefficient? wasteful?) on a per pupil basis. Now, we could follow your model, and probably tell those 650, as well as the Early Childhood toddlers to stay home (just too need intensive and complex, but hey! huge dollar saving’s), and hope the gen-ed teachers can manage as best they can with the rest, but that's not what this country believes in thankfully.

Dan, you should talk to one of your running mates about all this. Ask him and his wife if they value inclusion,if they value these "socialistic, inefficient, wasteful, programs". Thankfully, this is just your fantasy, You can call me names, and try to link me to people with the hope it will reflect poorly on me, call me a shill for the union, etc. etc. but your words, one again, serve to help people understand just how little you value teachers and the complexity of education today. It's all about dismantling public education so you can save money on your taxes.

Thom Higgins
QE203.org

Anonymous ONE,

Sorry, schools are one of many factors in home values. Overall one must look at the overall quality of the housing stock, the style, the age. Then there is the demographic of the property owners. What type of work they do, the household income. Even ethnic and racial makeup play a role... sounds in the realm of racism, but let's be honest and not ignore that it is a factor.

Years ago Naperville schools were nothing special, esp back when Naperville was little more than a farm community. Just look at the horrendous decisions that earlier school boards made in terms of school districts, boundaries, investments in quality school buildings, etc. These people were downright cheap and petty.

The first wave of the building boom was when Naperville was considered out in the sticks and people who couldn't afford anything closer in moved here because it was all they could afford. People barely scraping by isn't always the best foundation by which to build a successful community or school system.

Somehow Naperville managed to grow and thrive through subsequent waves of building booms that stretched the boundaries to what we see today. Somehow we managed to survive a split in the school districts and the tax burden of building dozens of schools. And the schools have improved though we do not have the best schools in the state or the best schools in the Chicago metro area. They do still have lots of room for improvement.

If we were to look at school performance and test scores on a proportionate basis based upon housing values, property taxes paid, or household income we would all be shocked at the net numbers. Right now there is a lot of misplaced chest thumping over the gross numbers without comparing the same numbers on an equal baseline basis.

Despite the argument to the contrary housing values are driven by many factors and as real estate agents are quick to say: location, location, location. If you have a nice house in a nice neighborhood with lots of comparable housing with a good location you are going to get a decent value. A smart person never wants to have the nicest home on the block because the neighbors drag down what your home is really worth. A smarter move is to have a home on the lower end of what is in the neighborhood and get your value dragged up by the neighbors... though you pay the price for this to a certain extent in property taxes.

There are plenty of really, really nice homes in Oswego or Plainfield or anywhere for that matter. If the same identical home was located in Naperville there would be some adjustment for value, but the vast majority of the adjustment would be related to the difference in land cost, differences in building codes, and local services provided and not to an intangible value such as a subjective value like the reputation of the local schools.

School performance is not carved in stone and can increase or decrease based upon a number of factors. Just look at some collar communities adjacent to the City of Chicago. Decades ago people moved to these collar communities because they had better schools than what was offered in the city. Today most people would be loath to live in many of these communities much less raise a family or attend their schools.

Times change and the growth is now to the west and south of us. Eventually these newer communities have the ability to repeat what Naperville did 20-30 years ago and end up with schools that are better than ours. Of course in the nature of good competition it is up to us to continue the hard work of the past to maintain good schools but there are other communities waiting to eat our lunch if we rest on our laurels.

To former teacher

Excellant ideas and great assessment of the shortcomings of the current system. You are the type of person that should be on the school board!!!!

We sweep way too many items under the rug.

Scrooge,

Two things:

1) Parents with children in school already pay extra for the education that their children receive, in fees and other costs not imposed on our neighbors who either do not have children or whose children have grown. I'm not complaining; that's just the way it is.

2) Quality public education is a critical component not only of a community's value and desirability, but of our nation's future and standing in the world. Contrary to your assumption, public education IS a public good. We all benefit from living in a community with superior schools, even those without children. Your assumption that school quality has no bearing on home values is, quite simply, wrong.

ALL people benefit when children receive a good education. And I think we can all agree on what a "public good" is. Quality schools are a public good. So is clean water. So are safe streets, by the way.

Your assertion that parents should pay more for public education leads me to a question: Should victims of crime pay more for police services than others? If your car is vandalized and you call the police, do you expect to be presented with a bill at the end of the day? If a fire breaks out in your home, do you expect to ask the firefighters for a cost estimate before they turn on the hose?

Living in Naperville costs money. Taxes are part of the cost. We all have to deal with it.

Former Teacher,

Great, coherent post (not just because I agree with you).

I am especially aghast at the rating/review process in the school system.

For those out there who have jobs or have had jobs where you had yearly reviews, regular peer reviews, etc., I HIGHLY encourage you to go down to the 203 offices and ask to see the cumulative data on ratings/reviews in 203 over, say, a 3 or 5 year period.

The numbers speak for themselves. Simply put, the answers appear to be somewhere in the following:

-> There is no effort to give accurate and honest reviews, or

-> The reviewer (ie Superintendant, bottomline) did not have the stomach to take on the individual teachers and their union by giving a real review, or

->Every teacher in 203 is stupendous, or

->The bar has been set so low, and is never improved or raised, that everyone can eventiually become stupendous, or

->A combo of all of the above

Until we have real, honest reviews with raising bars of achievements for teachers, we will never have pay for performance or the elimination of tenure. The union is too strong and owns too many of the current Board members.

Scrooge on December 4, 2009 1:09 PM

I am not interested in good schools promoting or protecting my home value, it is up to individuals to maintain their homes, thus maintaing home values. It is a false assumption, home values are driven by good public schools. This assunption is only another way to demand more tax revenue for public education.

_________________________

Scrooge, I may be misunderstanding, but are you saying that good schools are not a key factor in home values? If so, I disagree. Look at 4 bedroom, 3 bath, 3000sf homes in Naperville, Oswego, Plainfield. Their prices are very different and I think Schools have a lot to do with it. I'm not saying it's the only factor, but IMO the schools are the major factor that set each of these three apart.

I also wonder still if the $2000 you want each family to contribute to education costs is In Addition to the $7300 (In my case) I already "contribute" to the school district?

A few comments on different things:

The 10 year old "arsonist"
I would hope that the police did their due diligence and talked to the child and the family and determined that the risk of repeat was small. As I said above on Dec, 3 at 12:31, I had a VERY similar situation with a student when I first started teaching. That child did not repeat the behavior and learned his lesson from the situation. (Honestly, I think he was so scared that he punished himself in some ways more than anyone else could have.) I did keep track of him over the years so I know he graduated high in his class. He did quite well in high school and I know he went to college. I did lose track of him once he hit college. He should be out and working now. So I do have hope that in this new situation that the child involved has also learned his lesson and will go on to do just fine in the future.

Teachers and advanced degrees:
Having taught for 20 years before I decided to take some time off to be around more for my high schoolers, I think I have some valid input on this subject.
Most teachers get their Masters in Educational leadership because that is what is required if you want the option to go into administration at some time. You need those classes for that type of certification if you ever want to be a department chair, principal, dean, etc. Any position with supervisory status requires that certification.
That being said, I agree that those degrees do not do that much in the way of improving actual instruction in the classroom. I will totally agree that content area degrees do far more to improve instruction. An elementary teacher who gets a Masters in reading instruction will be a far better teacher in the classroom because the degree has actual impact on what he/she does everyday. A Math or Science teacher with a Masters degree in their subject will be a better instructor also. The problem is that those degrees will not allow them to move of the ladder as far as positions in the school. Those degrees will not allow them to take on additional supervisory positions. So many teachers choose the direction that will allow them additional options as far as positions and certification.

In past years, teachers were able to receive some tuition reimbursement of the costs for taking additional classes. (It was never full reimbursement, just a specific sum per credit hour.) That "perk" has disappeared from most district contracts in recent years. 204 no longer has that at all. And 203 has "interest free loans" of up to $2000/year to help teachers out, but those loans are repaid through payroll deduction during the year. It is somewhat an incentive for the teacher since they may not always have the money to pay outright for the classes they are taking, so paying the district back over time this way may be helpful. In both districts, any class taken to help advance you on the salary schedule must be preapproved by the professional growth committee in the district. Now that the state requires continuous professional growth in order for teachers to maintain their certification, districts no longer need to give an incentive such as tuition reimbursement for teachers to take classes. However, I do think it may have impacted those teachers who might get additional content area degrees if they had some reimbursement.

As a former teacher, I worked in 2 different districts over my 20 years. The things I would like to see changed are:

Tenure. After working for a very ineffectual principal who allowed everyone to acquire tenure then passed them off to other schools through internal transfers (and ending up with one of my own kids in one of these teacher's class), I would love to see this eliminated. I think there was a time when tenure was necessary, but I do think that time is gone. If a teacher is a good and competent teacher, they will be fine. And unfortunately, many teachers do burn out and become ineffective after a period of time. (Have had a kid in one of those teacher's classes too.)

Stipend for National board certification: I saw quite a few teachers get this "honor" over the last few years. Some of them are actually superior teachers. But I also saw a few who are poor teachers manage to be able to "jump through the hoops" required of this program and receive this certification. There is simply not enough required of these teachers to really determine if they are worthy of it or not. Any teacher can put together a couple of good lessons. But some cannot do this on a regular daily basis. Three of the worst teachers my kids ever had were able to get National Board certification. Of course some of their best teachers also did too. My point is that it just isn't comprehensive enough of a program, and until it becomes more comprehensive, then I don;t think it should be rewarded.

Better evaluation programs for teachers: Right now the evaluations of teachers simply are not strong enough to determine if a teacher is good or not. A supervisor coming in and evaluating a teacher on 2-3 preplanned occasions during the school year just is not enough. I would love to see something that includes more spur of the moment evaluations and maybe include some student and parental input. If you are a good teacher, you should not be concerned about parents and students having some input. I realize it would be much more work overall for the supervisors, but I honestly do think it could be done.

I know there are teachers who would be appalled at my suggestions. But I also know many who would applaud what I am advocating. Good teachers get just as frustrated with ineffective teachers in their buildings as parents and students do.

Some reaction to Thom's comments.

1."Complexity of education today" Gibberish. These complexities were initially created by wasteful state and Federal grants that mandated "supplemental programs" rather than efficient programs. Take ESL (English as Second Language). A separate (ADDITIONAL) teacher pulling children out of their classes to get extra English instruction. (By the way, supplemental could be an extra hour after school, but 203's steadfast commitment to the shortest elementary school day--this came up three years ago and NO ACTION YET--prevents this. And my nagging question, how do these children learn the materials when they are out of class?)

If we went to smaller class sizes, all of the ESL children would be in one class. That would eliminate the "complexity" and replace it with "productivity". But then ALL teachers would have to work instead of almost half having very limited accountability. And the "progressives" (LIBERALS) will yell inclusion that holds back the other 80% of the students so all proceed at the pace of the lowest!!

Thom alluded to this "complexity" and confusion on these pages last spring. When I and others noted that this complexity seemed both "costly" and "unproductive", he simply stopped responding.

2. "Should teachers receive greater than CPI increases?" NO. Under their current "union, commodity" arrangement, they should be paid a commodity price at the mean of the 80th percentile of teachers in the metropolitan Chicago area. There would be more than sufficient numbers of teachers. There were enough applicants to replace every teacher in the District 4 times four years ago, it would probably be twice this level now. Teachers leave other district with ten years experience and accept position in 203 even though they only get credit for four years on the salary schedule. They work for 20% lower than an existing 203 teacher with the same experience.

But I oppose the above union system. While the common complaint is that it protects the poor teachers (they are there. Of the people I know, every school has three to ten teachers that parents do everything to make sure their children do not get in their class), it also stifles productivity. Teachers are chided by their union stewards if they were to allow children to come in after school for additional help.

A better system would be a merit based system where goals are established for each teacher and they are actually managed by principals who would determine if the teacher deserved bonus (just like in the private sector). Tenure should be eliminated, it should be common for the lowest performing teachers to be dismissed, etc.

But until teachers accept a pay for performance program, they should be paid the same increases as other UNION workers. And parents will have to move their children to private schools when their child gets assigned to one of the duds.

3. "I’m delighted that the actual net cost for teachers raises." And your taxes too. You told everyone you would be shocked if teacher salaries had increased by more than 3%. Not the average "NET" increase, the average. You found that unfathomable. Now that you realize it is true, you change your position. Understood, we’ve seen that before in “leaders” such as Jimmy Carter, Rod Blagoivich, and Bill Clinton. You can’t help yourself because you are simply shilling for the union.

When teachers and District’s were originally given the OPTION for early retirements, the goal was not additional compensation to older teachers, it was to get them out and replace them with lower paying teachers. The goal was ZERO percent increase, even decreases (go back and read the legislation and articles from the 90’s. So once again, a program that gets ripped off.

As I stated before, convert all of the District schools to Charter Schools and let them compete for students. Those that succeed, the teachers and administrators would benefit financially. Those that fail, the teachers are fired and a new group takes a chance. It is amazing that this is the European model, in fact also the Russian model. THEY MIGHT RELEGATE MEDICAL CARE TO A SOCIALISTIC MODEL, BUT NOT EDUCATION.

It is a shame change is not made because only the children suffer. And I fully expect that a "progressive" like Thom could never agree with me, no hard feelings. But just as the "progressive" Obama stimulus package failed, so does the current socialistic educational model.

Much of what was posted earlier about 10 year olds is simply untrue. Any juvenile can be charged with being a delinquent offender. If there is cause to charge them as an adult then specific charges as an adult would be stipulated. Not knowing the exact age of the child in question doesn't help determine some of the legal options. Regardless, only children who are 10 years of age or older can be placed into a juvenile detention facility. Children younger than 10 can be taken into custody. It will be up to the court to determine if the parents will continue to be able to supervise the child or if DCFS or another agency will be given the job of supervising a young offender while the case works it's way thru the court system.
Just because this happened during the school day shouldn't make any difference in how the police handled it. The suggestion is that it is up to the school district at this point. Fact of the matter is the school district has a hard enough time delivering their primary mission of education and doesn't need to be saddled with the extra burden of somehow being a judicial system... let's remember this crime was committed against the school district which also make the school district the victim and it isn't really impartial for the school district to be judge, jury, and victim. The impartiality of the judicial system should come to play here.
On the other hand if it is only up to the school district then god forbid if this child had decided to start a fire on Sunday at church because the suggestion is that if it happened outside school that there would be nothing that can be done.
Without some kind of court order how do any of us know if this child continues to be a threat to us and his/her self? How do we know if this child has received treatment or if the treatment was a failure? The Arsonist Registration Act was a step in the right direction, but it does seem to have some huge loopholes in terms of youthful offenders. Problem is there are a few arsonists who do it for monetary reasons and they are usually adults. The other problem is that youthful arsonists do it for the simple thrill and enjoyment and they are mostly in the 9-14 year old range.

Scrooge--I understand what you are saying and where you come from. I do think that setting 10% aside from each "paying" family may not cover those that cannot afford the fees, whether a sliding scale or whatever. We have no clue what that would be, just my hunch. I also feel that families that are paying 3,000.00 per child for 2 or 3 or more children would be harshly burdened, and easily put on that "sliding" scale of eligibility for funding. It may not leave many families at all that would actually pay full price, in addition to what they may be paying with their property tax portion of school funding, as you suggest.

An elderly neighbor of mine here has always told me that the schools did a great job for his children and grandchildren, publicly funded. He does not like the high spending, wishes those in charge would be better stewards of our cash, as I have stated earlier. But, he pays, despite the higher sacrifice every year. I do understand there are those that have less ability to pay, I would again ask that the boards spend as if it was coming out of their own personal funds, funds that could be saved at a higher level for their own children and grandchildren, if savings were to be had. Why is this such a difficult thing to do? My goodness, home prices inflate artificially for a number of years, people spend what they think their home is artificially worth, schools and municipalities follow suit, the smoke and mirrors subside and it's so difficult for all of us to admit our possible mistakes, and spend as if there is a tomorrow?

I probably won't be able to add much more until Monday, so a couple of thoughts now.

1) I agree with Dan D about grade school teacher compensation.

2) I found an interesting article from Education Week.

• "States spend millions of education dollars each year rewarding teachers for earning advanced degrees that show little correlation with improved student achievement, a recent analysis concludes."
• "Researchers have found that in certain content areas, such as high school mathematics and science, holding an advanced degree bears a positive relationship to student achievement. But many more teachers hold master's degrees in education or school leadership, and there is far less evidence of such a relationship for those degrees."

Additional content knowledge matters for math and science. Educational and leadership degrees might not help.

e^(i*pi)

TB post on 12-04-09 at 6:45 AM

Thank you for your comment. I do not expect children to be educated at $2800 per year, nor do I expect to eliminate property taxes for schools. My goal is to have parents pick up part of the tab of public education.

I am not interested in good schools promoting or protecting my home value, it is up to individuals to maintain their homes, thus maintaing home values. It is a false assumption, home values are driven by good public schools. This assunption is only another way to demand more tax revenue for public education.

GJC post 12-03-09 at 9:34PM

Thank you for your comments, it is my opinion public education is not a public good. One reason education is available in the private sector. Two, who decides what a public good should be, should it parents who send their children to public schools? Nyet!

Lastly, "people deciding where to live", have an obligation to pay more then just property taxes to cover the cost of education. If you want to live in a specific area do not burden others with additional costs.

These are my opinions and it looks as if being taken for a ride by the taxing units of government will continue.

Dan,

I think the fact that there is essentially a 1 to 1 ratio of teachers to specialty and support staff speaks directly to the complexity of education today. If you look at the huge variety of support staff functions, not just art music and PE teachers, but also ELL, gifted, reading, band, orchestra, special-ed and special- ed multi needs, etc. there is no way you can have each and every teacher perform all these functions, especially in an elementary school setting.

also regarding this; I am waiting for the Zowie as well!!!! Looks like my spread sheet and meeting with Dave Zager finally set in--8 months later. ZOWIE!!!!

Please stop the revisionist history. I believe I was the one who suggested we three sit down, which is what happened. Dave Zager provided the facts and figures to us both, although I incorporated more of the information in my document than you did.

e^(i*pi)

My feelings remain the same as before. I’m delighted that the actual net cost for teachers raises, to me and all taxpayers, has only averaged 3.54% annually for the last ten years, irrespective of what the exact gross percentage is. As to the gross wage increases for teachers I think the essential question is; should teachers receive greater than CPI increases? If you say yes, then you condemn a teacher to essentially the starting salary (adjusted for inflation) forever. If you say no there has to be the promise of wage growth through their career to attract quality teachers, that leaves you open to the charge of excessive raises as is so often claimed.

A question for you. Will you share with us your thoughts regarding D203 teachers’ salaries and raises?

Lastly, as I have said before the past is not prologue. I expect that the next contract will reflect significantly lower salary increases.

Thom Higgins
QE203.org

All of this talk about costs in 203 has led me to a simple observation/question:

>Given the size of 203 (and 204), shouldn't the laws of "economy of scale" kick in and do two things:

1)ensure our cost structure/spending per pupil is BELOW that of the State average, and

2)allow the same spending per student to actually DECREASE (not increase) over time (not includng new buildings) via a series of step finctions onteh cost curve?

I think the argument that "203 does well in tests and cost less than others, thus everything is fine" is a canard as it does not address the real economics of the issue!

To e^(i*pi)

As to smaller class sizes by converting all OVERHEAD TEACHERS into classroom teachers.

First, make sure that these teachers are working the appropriate hours for their salary. The 203 elementary school teachers are significantly overpaid when you compare their salaries to those of most elementary only school districts. (NOte you always see the teachers union compare themselves to High School Districts such as New Trier, Stevenson or Highland Park as being underpaid--sneaky). Maybe they should be working more.

If they still would have to work more than a reasonable contract would provide (say 10%), then adjust the classsize (12 to 14) and pay them 10% more. You still have class sizes that are remarkable.

Thinking back to when I went to PUBLIC elementary school (K-8), we had 25 classrooms and 27 teachers (on gym teacher for all grades and two halfs for music and art from 5 to 8. These OVERHEAD TEACHERS create waste in public schools.

To Thom, in general, two ways you get higher per pupil spending. Higher teacher salaries and lower class sizes. Maybe more OVERHEAD TEACHERS. The highest teacher salary differential (high schools that pay more) I have seen is 10 to 15%. That cannot count for the difference.

Another number I have asked for and have NEVER received from the high paid 203 administration is the per student costs of elementary schools and high schools. If I had the time, I could calculate (need to apply that staffing report to salary dollars). Based on work for another unit district, here is my guess

Unit per pupil cost............$10,500 (close to 203 for reference)

Elementary per pupil cost.......$7,500 (2/3rd of students)

High School per pupil cost.....$16,000 (1/3rd of students)

The elementary numbers are higher than elementary averages since we pay elemntary teachers more. The high school is lower because we slightly underpay high school teachers AND there are economies for combined administration. These facts argue that there should be two teachers contracts, one for elementary and another for high school. But guess who controls the union--elementary teachers--there are more of them. And they push for the OVERHEAD TEACHERS so they can have their "breaks".

Sometimes you need to step back and look at the forest rather than the trees.

Just Watching–

I think what you wrote could be happening, but that’s hardly the only source of McMansion sales in the city. Plus, if this person really is well-known to law enforcement, I’m confident they’re looking into the source of the funds for the home purchases.

Sales are starting to pick up here overall, with three McMansions in my area being bought in the past four months. The new owners are very nice and respectable people (doctors, etc) and are not related to drug dealers.

**********

Scrooge –

“Why should those without children in public school or who send children to private school pay the same in taxes as parents with children in public schools.”

Your home value benefits from good schools, that’s why. Perhaps people with children in school should pay more of the burden, but public education is still the responsibility of the community.

I also doubt your $3K plan is anywhere near effective, especially since $200 is set aside for low-income students. $2,800 will not come close to educating anyone around here. Sts. Peter and Paul is about $6K per year (I believe) so how do you think anyone could get educated for $2,800?

T.B.

To e^(i*pi) last comment.

Too bad a Taxpayer Ticket did not rise up after Rudy Carl left the Board. The five to seven years of union control (Costello/Weber) that literally doubled property taxes would have been more constrained and we would have the same value in education today as we had in 1995. And there would still be 5,000 teachers applying for the 100 openings. Bolingbrook pays less and they have no problem filling positions.

If 203 actually recruited teachers from top national educational universities, maybe a higher cost would be justified. But extremists from UIC are not top national colleges.

I am waiting for the Zowie as well!!!! Looks like my spread sheet and meeting with Dave Zager finally set in--8 months later. ZOWIE!!!!

Dan D: In regards to the main teacher being responsible for the ArtMusicPE classes -- The present contract requires a certain amount of time without student responsibilities each day for lunch (40 min) and class prep (30 min). The AMPE classes serve as the class prep time.

As for the grade school teacher collaboration time: This should be done before school or after school. Do not use the AMPE teachers to babysit for this time. The grade school teachers have significantly shorter work day as it is. Any new contract can spell out an extra 30 minutes each week where they need to be at school for collaborative time.

Regarding the teachers needed versus enrollment: It is easy at the high school level to staff classes. At the grade school level, the problem comes in that each school has a different number of classes. A full time AMPE teacher is apparently responsible for teaching 22 hours per week which corresponds to 22 "classes" of kids.

It looks as if Meadow Glens will be down to 16.5 next year, Ranch View down to 15, Scott down to 16.5 and so on (methodology: double Kindergarten, subtract 5th grade). There is a severe loss of efficiency when "support" staff is not at full employment.

Mr Higgins: I'd like you to revisit your ZOWIE! moment with 6.25% raises instead of 7%. See if you still say ZOWIE! I suspect you will. Heck -- use 5.57% if you'd like. This has nothing to do with your misunderstanding of average raise vs increase in average salary. This is a pure question of whether you still have the gut reaction when you see the numbers in action. Try it. You won't like it. Note also that the smaller pay raises you list came after a hastily agreed upon contract under fear of a Taxpayer Ticket infused school board.

e^(i*pi)

e^(i*pi)

Various thoughts;

AMPE (Art Music and Phys Ed teachers at the elementary school level) staffing. As I remember it, a decision was made this year to assign them enrichment duties (in support of the existing enrichment teachers that get paid a pittance) for their open slots.

With respect to your comments regarding OEPP (Operating Expenditures Per Pupil) I use the OEPP as it’s the biggest official number provided by the ISBE that also has the benefit of there being state average to compare to. As we all know it’s not a complete picture of a SD’s finances, nor is it intended to provide one. You have put a lot of emphasis recently on the fact that in some prior years 203 has been under the state average (2000 thru 2004 reporting years) and we know it was over the state average for 1998-1999 (farthest back I can find) as well as the 2005 thru 2009 reporting years.

The question is does comparing the OEPP for a group of years tell us anything about the trajectory of spending by a district? I’m not so sure it does, as although you get to deduct certain capital outlays and principal retired, D203 had, for example, almost $11 million in Operations and Maintenance expenses, which is included in the OEPP for the 2009 report. As the budget years where the OEPP was below the state average line up fairly well to when the district was asking for an operating referendum, I’m wondering if the reason why the districts spending was below the state average those years was largely due to budget constraints and they deferred any capital outlays they could. Indeed, if you look at the Instructional Expenditure Per Pupil it is consistently above the state average for all years.

So why use the OEPP? Because it gives a yearly benchmark to compare a given SD to its peers. The fact that D203 is only 3% over the state average, when its peers, the top 7 HSD’S are spending a whopping 32%, almost 10 times!) more than the state average and even the top 7 CUSD”s are spending 9% over the state average, tells me that 203 is doing their job keeping costs down. Regardless, if we want to compare District 203 spending to the state average based on total cost’s I will re-post the following:

From the Daily Herald Study 2007. D203 numbers

1996-1997 Revenue $128,147

Avg. Daily Attendance 16,586

2005-2006 Revenue $202,787

Avg. Daily Attendance 17,613

Revenue increase 49%

Avg. Daily Attendance increase 6%

State Average Revenue Increase 52%

State Average ADA increase 8%

What this means is if you go back ten years, and solve for the enrollment increases, D203 increased less than that state average.

Lastly, as this is enough for one night, the cost of education has been increasing nationally at a rate greater that the CPI for years. Why? The cost of No Child Left Behind compliance, unfunded mandates especially at the state level, special ed is a real biggie, as well as more mundane things such as health care costs increases.

For Dan regarding this comment of his; 2. Using the staffing report referenced by e^(i*pi), positions were down 2.7%, enrollment 2%. Did we hold on to too many teachers in fy2009? This is the primary reason that schools that Thom point out spend more money than 203 have higher spending. They did not adjust staffing to appropriate levels.

Boy, I don’t know about the last statement. Most schools I reported on have fairly comparable classroom sizes, look at my comparison of the top CUSD’s. I’m thinking there has to be something else at play here with the additional costs.

Thom Higgins

QE203.org

Just Watching said:
Naperville has more than 130 homes for sale that are priced over $1 million - and there are virtually no buyers.
Except: One drug dealer who is well known to law enforcement, has bought a couple of them and is stashing his people there.
____________________________________________________________________

JW, do you know this for a fact or is this a rumor you are repeating? If it's the former, I really hope you contact the NPD either directly or throught Crime Stoppers to pass along the information. I would hate to think that kind of filth is inhabiting our community. We don't need or want their money or their presence.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 19, 2004

Gov. Blagojevich signs Arsonist Registration Act
Will alert law enforcement, fire departments to presence of known arsonists in their communities, aid in arson investigations
SPRINGFIELD – Governor Rod R. Blagojevich today signed into law a measure that gives local law enforcement and arson investigators a valuable tool in their efforts to track down arsonists by establishing an arsonist registry.

“Arson is a terrible crime that destroys millions of dollars in property and kills innocent victims each year,” said Gov. Blagojevich. “Many arsonists are repeat offenders, but if local law enforcement and fire departments don’t know these people are living and working in their communities, they might not have the information they need to solve these arson cases.”

House Bill 4426, sponsored by Rep. Michael McAuliffe (R-Chicago) and Sen. James DeLeo (D-Chicago), requires arsonists to register for 10 years with law enforcement officials where they live, work or attend school. The information will be forwarded to the Illinois State Police (ISP), which will enter arsonists’ names and addresses into the Illinois Law Enforcement Analysis and Reporting System (I-CLEAR). Through I-CLEAR, the information will be available to local law enforcement agencies, fire and arson investigators, the Office of the State Fire Marshal and local fire departments and fire protection districts. The State Fire Marshal’s office will make the arsonist registry available to the public on its website.

“Requiring convicted arsonists to register with the State Police and be entered into a state-wide database will go a long way in helping local law enforcement and fire department officials identify and prevent arsonists from becoming repeat offenders,” said Sen. DeLeo.

Minors who are tried and convicted as adults will also be required to register under the new act, which takes effect January 1, 2005. Until the I-CLEAR system is available statewide, the registry initially will apply to arsonists who live, work or attend school in the city of Chicago.

A $10 fee will be charged for initial registration, with a $5 annual renewal fee.

“As a firefighter myself, I know how frustrating arson investigations can be,” said Illinois State Fire Marshal J.T. Somer. “Knowing that a convicted arsonist is living in our community can be an important piece of the puzzle when investigating an arson case, one that could help us solve it before he or she has the chance to strike again.”

##############################

Much of what was posted earlier about 10 year olds is simply untrue. Any juvenile can be charged with being a delinquent offender. If there is cause to charge them as an adult then specific charges as an adult would be stipulated. Not knowing the exact age of the child in question doesn't help determine some of the legal options. Regardless, only children who are 10 years of age or older can be placed into a juvenile detention facility. Children younger than 10 can be taken into custody. It will be up to the court to determine if the parents will continue to be able to supervise the child or if DCFS or another agency will be given the job of supervising a young offender while the case works it's way thru the court system.

Just because this happened during the school day shouldn't make any difference in how the police handled it. The suggestion is that it is up to the school district at this point. Fact of the matter is the school district has a hard enough time delivering their primary mission of education and doesn't need to be saddled with the extra burden of somehow being a judicial system... let's remember this crime was committed against the school district which also make the school district the victim and it isn't really impartial for the school district to be judge, jury, and victim. The impartiality of the judicial system should come to play here.

On the other hand if it is only up to the school district then god forbid if this child had decided to start a fire on Sunday at church because the suggestion is that if it happened outside school that there would be nothing that can be done.

Without some kind of court order how do any of us know if this child continues to be a threat to us and his/her self? How do we know if this child has received treatment or if the treatment was a failure? The Arsonist Registration Act was a step in the right direction, but it does seem to have some huge loopholes in terms of youthful offenders. Problem is there are a few arsonists who do it for monetary reasons and they are usually adults. The other problem is that youthful arsonists do it for the simple thrill and enjoyment and they are mostly in the 9-14 year old range.

To e^(i*pi) and Thom,

Thanks for pointing me to information. A couple of observations.

1. The fy2010 enrollment is forecasted at 17,896. What was the actual? The staffing plan was for the 17,896. If fewer students enrolled, were classes consolidated to maximize staffing? This is a common procedure at most schools.

2. Using the staffing report referenced by e^(i*pi), positions were down 2.7%, enrollment 2%. Did we hold on to too many teachers in fy2009? This is the primary reason that schools that Thom point out spend more money than 203 have higher spending. They did not adjust staffing to appropriate levels.

3. Looking at the staffing report e^(i*pi) posted, notice that for every CLASSROOM teacher their is another "OVERHEAD" teacher or specialist. How about another approach that Disney helped implement at an elementary school in DesMoines, Iowa. Make the classroom teacher responsible for all specialties (gym, music, etc). Students with special needs would be grouped for same attention.

The OUTCOME? Classroom sizes could be reduced from the average of 24 (I am guessing, but close), to 12. As a parent, that would be a wonderful tradeoff. And that is how the private schools do it.

4. As for Scrooge, you are totally right about the monopoly in education. The answer, THE PRIVATE SECTOR should compete with the PUBLIC OPTION (sounds like medical care). That is how European schools work, the dollars follow the student. If a school does not attract students, it is closed and its staff is dismissed. Imagine if you could select your school and teacher. That would eliminate those teachers that parents try to avoid like the plague. You could also allow your students to avoid socialistic teachers such as the one at North that wanted to bring the unrepentant terrorist Ayers to our town. While the European medical model is awful, the European school model is worth considering. And there are many other facets such as determining one's future job opportunities based on educational performance by the 9th Grade.

This comment (and I think Scrooge would like it) would be a start to Mr. Mitrovich's call to improve education in Naperville (I wonder why he made that his first article). Inquiring minds want to know.

Mr. Scrooge suggests: Why should those without children in public school or who send children to private school pay the same in taxes as parents with children in public schools.

It's really pretty simple, because education is a public good. Because educated children will become the leaders and workers of the future. Because a high quality education system, funded by the taxpayer base, is not only a public good, but is exceedingly good for the tax base of the city itself. You see, it makes a place more popular, and good schools is the very first thing that people look for when deciding where to live.
I suspect that you're trolling with an unpopular opinion.

All that said, the 203/304 system is in need of a financial makeover, but it is such a complex, interconnected system, it's hard to know where to start, or what elements will cause more damage than good.

Anonoymous One posted a question to Scrooge on 12-03-09 @12:26PM

I will give an answer, which I know will not satisfy all. The public school system has a near monopoly on education. This is not good situation.

Only parents who have students in public school would pay the attendance fee. Suggested payment of $3000. Why should those without children in public school or who send children to private school pay the same in taxes as parents with children in public schools.

There are other solutions, the school district could send all parents with chidren in a private school or home school a check for $3000. This would provide an incentive for parents to home school or send a child to private school. Fewer children in public schools should result in lower property taxes, because fewer teachers are needed and less class room space is needed.

But governments insatiable appetite for other peoples money and power, unfortunately, will never lower taxes.

I am posting the staffing document from D203 from earlier this year. It appears that 52 5th grade classes are on their way out to be replaced by about 42 1st grade classes, for a drop of another 10 classes across the district.

I will analyze this data later, but it certainly seems as if the school board had better start doing something about the relative over-staffing of AMPE. We cannot have 100k+ per year AMPE teachers with less than a full load of classes. We cannot have 100k+ per year librarian/media specialists supporting 15-18 classes of students. I am not sure of the answer, but the I hope the board is actually addressing these issues in a year where there will be no available increase in tax levy.

Mr. Higgins, you forgot to mention that D203 was at 95% of the state average for OEPP in 2002 and is now at 103%. The state OEPP increased at 4.3% per year since 2002. The state OEPP inflation, in turn, outpaced CPI and inflation. That is the problem.

Also, as I mentioned before, D203 has always performed well on the standardized tests (value of that metric: undetermined) and increases in spending are locked by max(CPI,5%) so that score:cost comparisons with other districts should not change much over time.

e^(i*pi)

I looked over the Park District's draft of a strategic plan and wrote/posted an open letter with feedback to them on my blog: http://onnaperville.com

You can find the draft at http://www.napervilleparks.org/ and they have an online feedback form you can submit.

Basically, I think the plan is pretty decent. The Park District does good work on the staff and programming side. The Vision statements aren't really visionary, more a list of what they've done well up until now.

The biggest problem I have with the plan is that it never really acknowledges how their Image has been damaged by the dysfunction of the board/ED/staff. We may not expect them to say it in writing, but you'd think one of their goals under area of Image would address those problems.

And if they developed a more concrete set of priorities for the next 5 years, maybe they could avoid much of the arguing about how to spend their money.

I think Ray McGury is turning out to be a great choice for ED.

Just Watching,

Can you get into more details? Like which houses. Does this person have a record? How do you know? I'm not doubting you at all. I'm just curious. That is interesting if true. Never thought about that.

Naperville has more than 130 homes for sale that are priced over $1 million - and there are virtually no buyers.
Except: One drug dealer who is well known to law enforcement, has bought a couple of them and is stashing his people there.

In Naperville? You betcha, right in the heart of our perfect town.

What did you think was going to happen with overgrown McMansions during a down economy? As in just about any other community they become rooming houses and the neighborhood changes.

BR,

Regarding your comment about wanting the upcoming agreement to keeps costs in line with our projected income for the next 3 years, I agree, except I think it will need to be for longer than that. I have to believe there is zero ability for a school district to float a referendum in this environment. The good news for residents is District 203 is in good shape financially now, and a more modest contract with the teachers will keep the district in the black for that much longer.

There are a number of districts that are seriously in the red right now that are in real trouble. I suspect there will be referendum efforts from some of these districts in the next year or so, and I expect they will fail. I do know that New Trier is going to pitch a facilities referendum next spring for something like $175 million. It will be interesting to see if it passes.

For Dan Denys,

Projected and actual enrollment numbers, for prior and future years, is part of the budget document and is available at the D203 website.

Thom Higgins

QE203.org

And the police department wonders why people are losing faith in their ability to serve and protect? And the police department wonders why people are no longer respecting police officers like they did years ago?
________________________________________________________________

Hmmm, I think we all know who thinks this way? Could it perhaps be our friend gone underground? Before I would comment on anything, I would know the facts, obviously you dont. I like the attempt to hide under anonymous now. I wouldnt even be suprised if you went to the library to have a new IP address. It wont take long to determine if it is our friend.

I had a similar situation happen when I was a teacher about 20 years ago. One of my first graders had found a lighter on the way to school. He ended up setting fire to the toilet paper on a trip to the bathroom because he was curious. He also tried to put it out by peeing on it. Luckily the damage was limited to the toilet paper dispenser because another student reported what was happening to the nearest teacher immediately. At the time it was something the 6 year old did out of curiosity with absolutely no thought or idea as to the potential danger of it. He did get a couple of days of suspension at the time. It was the only disciplinary problem I ever had with the kid. From what I know he never had another issue in school. I do know he graduated in the top 20% of his class from high school.

It does make sense for the parents to help cover some of the charges, at least those that insurance does not cover. ANd hopefully this child is like the one I had who learned from teh situation and will not do the same thing again.

Scrooge on December 3, 2009 6:56 AM

_______________

what am I missing Mr. Scrooge? Last I checked we are already paying over 70% of our taxes to the school district. For most people this comes out to at least 5K and up, depending on home value. Are you saying that everyone should pay the 3K in addition to the already paid SD taxes?

In a public school system you would probably run into the argument that this fee is disproportionately targeting the lower income families. I know you addressed this with the $200 for the poor (Can you define what poor is?), but for someone making 50K a year a $3,000 fee is much different than for someone making 150K a year.

By Anonymous on December 3, 2009 8:38 AM
Does it strike anyone as a bit odd that the Naperville Police Department has decided not to pursue any charges against a student who they know deliberately started a fire in an occupied school building?

If the child is under 10 years of age.... Most in this school are... State law does not allow for this child to be charged. So, if the child can not be charged, under state law, than it is up to the school district (and the insurance company) to punish the child. Hopefully, the childs family will be charged for ALL costs related to the repair of the school. The taxpayer should not have to cover the cost.

A $100,000 bill would be punishment for years to come.

Does it strike anyone as a bit odd that the Naperville Police Department has decided not to pursue any charges against a student who they know deliberately started a fire in an occupied school building?

What in the world are they thinking? Has it been that long ago that we have forgotten the Our Lady of the Angel's school fire tragedy and 92 lives lost due to a children playing with fire?

We have Zero Tolerance polices against weapons like knives and guns, even play guns being brought to school. From this it would appear that there are no Zero Tolerance policies against matches, lighters, or other sources of ignition which have the potential to start a fire and potentially kill far more students and teachers than a kid with a handgun.

Arson is a serious crime in this state. The citizens of Naperville can spend a million dollars in a no win he said-he said investigation and prosecution and subsequent civil trial of council member allegedly shoving a police officer, yet nothing is done to pursue a known arsonist? Nothing is being done to hold this childs parents at least partially responsible for the even the monetary damage that resulted from their child's action?

And the police department wonders why people are losing faith in their ability to serve and protect? And the police department wonders why people are no longer respecting police officers like they did years ago? Seems overdue for the Naperville Police Department to get back to basic policing... due the investigation, pass the facts over to the States Attorney and let them decide if a trial is warranted.
If the States Attorney decides not to pursue charges we can at least deal with that later at the ballot box. The children and teachers who were put in harms way deserve better than this.

Regarding increases in teacher salaries:

To me, the issue is not so much the percentage increase, but the fact that we have a history in this district of agreeing to expenses that will outpace our income, then threatening valued programs to force parents and taxpayers to pass a referendum to cover those expenses.

For the upcoming contract with the NUEA, I would really like to see an agreement that simply keeps costs in line with our projected income for the next 3 years. The discussion should start from "How do we allot the money we have?" instead of "How much do our teachers deserve?" The first is a reasonably clear standard that can be debated by rational people. The second is an emotional argument that nobody wins.

Since we have an excellent school system, in order to maintain that quality it is now time to have an attendance fee of $3000 per student per year. Property taxes are not enough to provide all the benefits needed.

The concept of free public education is flawed, parents who send their chidren to private schools are saddled with tuition and property taxes. My proposition of an attendance fee is not unreasonable.

Now before the cry goes out what about the poor who cannot afford an attendance fee. The solution is to set aside $200 of the $3000 to provide for the poor who cannot afford an attendance fee.

Anybody else notice the bait and switch pulled with the park district garden plots? One has to wonder if this was planned all along, and the NIMBYs where the new garden plots were supposedly going to be located were just a convenient excuse not to put them there. I also get a kick out of people who claim they want open land...after their subdivision was built.

OK.

If you all recall before the school elections last March, Thom and I met with Dave Zager to come up with the number that most people REALLY care about. What increase does a typical school teacher make year over year? 5.81% (the four year average number is closer to 6.25% (Dave was not around prior to three years ago).

The number has been lower in recent years as many teachers have retired and the union agreed to a lower contract in before the 2007 elections.

But here is the link to the final chart for the last three years that Dave and I substantially agreed (Thom, you are welcome to post the chart on your web site).

http://www.mediafire.com/file/0llmejywudj/Final%20Chart.pdf

The increases were higher in the early part of the decade based on the union controlled board and superintendent. This forced the unprecedented tax increases.

I'm glad that Thom has taken his time and now grasps most of what everyone has been saying for the last five years.

In this economy where more than 10% have lost their jobs, another 8% are "underemployed" and many governments are forcing employees to take five to fifteen days off without pay ("furlough") days, you would think teachers would be estatic with keeping their same pay level (no increase for one year). That is the same for CPI. We will see.

If 203 properly manages the district, the costs (and the related taxes) should not go up as enrollment continues to decline. (It's amazing how these numbers are not publicized.)

But to close, I want to compliment the Board on remaining 125% honest to their word on the past referendum. There were plenty of tricks they could have used to take more money from the tax levy. I think the integrity starts with Dave Zager compared to his predecessor.

Jennifer,

Many thanks for the link to Lori’s website, looks interesting.

e^(i*pi)

The calculations were performed by Dave Zager, but to answer your question, as indicated, the percentages are for incumbent teachers between each consecutive year. Dave would have to go back through all four year’s salary data to answer your question about breaking out raises for just the teachers employed for all four years. As to your question about teachers raises vis a vis the referendum, or even the district more broadly, let’s look at the following:

16 % raise for a teacher going from as BS21 to MA22 - current contract. Not positive, but at a quick glance looks to be the largest possible percentage increase.

5.57% average raise for all incumbent teachers 2007-2010 years.

3.63% average increase in the actual cost paid by residents for teacher’s raises - same time frame.

3% the percentage District 203 spends over the state average based on for OEPP. (Operational Expenses Per Pupil).

As you know, all the above is correct. I suspect that the farther down the list one reads the better they feel. As I have always looked at the actual total cost to the residents, I’ve not been troubled compared to say someone who looks solely at a potential 16% raise, but has no other information to provide a context for it.

Thom Higgins
QE203.org

By Anonymous on December 2, 2009 6:35 PM

RE: Car Dealerships

Car Dealerships are one of the principal method of funding governmental functions in Naperville. The city depends on the dealerships to keep a flow of sales taxes flowing into the city coffers. Because of that, some latitude has to be given to the dealerships. Unloading in the turning lanes might be one of those.

The last time the police tried to strictly enforce the law on the dealerships concerning test drives, we wound up wasting money on the little used test lane.

Why is it that I constantly drive down Ogden Avenue and see trucks parked in the center lane? Why is it that I can frequently drive down Ogden Avenue or Aurora Avenue and see car carriers parked in the center lane unloading new cars for the dealerships?

Since when did the center TURN LANE become a parking lot? Since when did the center TURN LANE become a loading dock? This is unsafe and the Naperville Police Department seems totally oblivious to this or must be taking some bribes to turn a blind eye to something like this. I guess someone is going to have to plow into one of these trucks and get killed before anyone cares enough to say this is wrong, this is unsafe, these truck drivers should not be doing this.

I know when a fast food restaurant wants to get a license for a drive thru one of the things they look at is the parking lot and if it has room for enough cars to be backed up without blocking the street. Certainly they look at the same issues with car dealers don't they... that the dealership has enough room on their lot for a truck to unload? And if they don't then why don't they go around back by the test track or at least on to a side street where parking is PERMITTED instead of jeopardizing traffic safety? I wonder how long I could park my own automobile in a center turn lane before I would get a ticket or get towed? Since when is there an exception for trucks???

As for east Odgen Avenue I can't begin to list the number of times I've seen trucks parked in the center lane while truck drivers ran across the street to a fast food restaurant. Yep, not even making a delivery or a pick-up. Just parking in the center lane to grab a cup of coffee or a sandwich.

And I've seen Naperville patrol cars drive right by and not even give these ILLEGALLY parked trucks a second glance. It is time someone responsible for traffic safety started taking their job seriously.

Before I comment about Thom's numbers, I too would like the answer to the question that e^(i*pi)raises.

In the private sector, companies keep the turnoever to survive in a brutal global economy. In the public sector, the unions keep the benefit.

Despite all of the rhetoric, the top US states losing jobs and suffering through a declining economy are

1. California
2. Michigan
3. New York
4. New Jersey
5. Illinois

This bodes poorly for the future. Less jobs, less wealth, higher taxes and declining economy. Are Illinois people proud that Democrat Todd Stroger justifies his high taxes that are destroying Cook County more than us to support the "Have Nots". What a joke.

The game will come to an end. As Margaret Thatcher aptly stated, "Socialism fails when the governments run out of other people's money." People are fleeing the Blue States with their money and their jobs.

Mr. Higgins,

Once again, can you please explain how you calculated the teacher raises? Was it only teachers who had been employed for all 4 years or was it all teachers? If it was all teachers, could you please give us an idea of what the raises were for the teachers who were actually in the district all four years? As I asked before, do you think the people who supported the referendum knew of the 5.57% raises? You certainly were a big proponent of the referendum but had no idea of what raises the employees were getting.

I will later try to post a more in depth look at the AMPE and librarian/media specialist costs at the schools.

e^(i*pi)

Thom Higgins: A friend of mine named Lori Skurka runs a private tutoring company based in Naperville. She has an educationally oriented blog on her site and welcomes comments, particularly from folks in Naperville. You should go check it out.

Here is the link:
http://www.elemental-learning.com/LorisCorner/tabid/90/Default.aspx

having myself been homeless often and prolongingly over some many, many years, i am buond to opine that the evictions should go forward, but only if the city is prepared to compensate the evictee either with suitable independent living arrangements, alternative housing with adequate privacy and personal safety and security concerns. this is a nation that will go ape sh#$%&*#!@* crazy over some wild animal getting stuck in someting, spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, show the incident on national televisionn over and over for days on end, but wwe won't help our fellow humans who are homeless. in deed, many states, if not all, have criminal statutes against cruelty to animals. as a society, and a so-called 'civilized' society at that, we have no such laws to protect the homeless and generally we don't do much to help them out, beyound the faith-based believers in human decencies and opportunities, and a few good men and womyn.

Food Pantries are today's version of the soup kitchens known to our parents and grandparents. It is the not-for-profits and the people coming together to solve a current existing problem that can't be totally met by government. It allows even the most of economically modest of people to make a small donation of a can or a box that is greatly appreciated by those who don't have the can or box.

Anyone been to that new breakfast place Tangerine in downtown Naperville next to Barnes & Noble? I went there yesterday, it was pretty good. Something interesting I noticed was they had a sign outside that said they're open 24 hours a day on Friday and Saturday.

I imagine that place is going to be PACKED at about 2 AM when the bars close. I was sad to see Corner Bakery go, but Tangerine seems to be a suitable replacement!

For those readers who are interested in public education, I’m happy to announce QE203.org’s annual cost vs. academic performance analysis is now posted on the QE203.org website under the “What is the Best Educational Value in Chicagoland?” heading.

Again, as in past years, D203’s cost vs. academic performance is excellent. Only 5 Chicago area high school districts students achieved a higher composite ACT score, however, those districts spent an approximate average of $3,800.00 or 35% more per pupil than D203 to achieve it. On a purely spending basis, District 203 has one of the lowest costs in the Chicagoland area. The above is based on the ISBE reported OEPP (operating expenses per pupil)data which does not include summer school, adult education, bond principal retired,and capital expenditures.

Also, newly posted on the website, is a page called ”Property Taxes 101” that gives you a detailed explanation of how property taxes are calculated in Naperville, as well as a page called ” Funding Public Education in Illinois” that explains the system of educational financing in Illinois. Lastly, there is an in-depth look at D203 teacher’s salaries and raises on the "Overview of Teachers salary increases page".

Allow me to offer a quick mea culpa regarding some comments I made earlier this year in the potluck blog regarding past teachers raises. For some there is no more contentious issue than the subject of teacher’s salaries, and unfortunately, there has been a huge volume of misinformation out there that incorrectly overestimates the actual raises that teachers’ and administrators receive receive. The Champion.org website was perhaps the best known example of this, but they fortunately seem to have recently removed any reference to percentage increases in favor of just listing the salaries.

It was during my conversations with Dave Zager, Asst. Superintendents of Finance, regarding teachers wage structure, that I apparently mistook, (or perhaps more accurately, started co-mingling) his comments about the net increase in salaries over the last eleven years of 3.54% (that takes into account the effect of teacher turnover) with the average teachers’ salary increase of 5.57% over the last 4 years.

At the end of the day, the important question is; what is the actual increase in costs, borne by the community due to teacher raises, which the community must pay. From that stand point, my basic premise that the actual dollars and cents increase to the residents is 3.54% still stands.

Thom Higgins
QE203.org

The Sun recently reported that the carillon has been coming in under budget and so the park district has been returning money to the city. I think it was about $30K one year and $60K another year.

Where is this money going? The city pays for the carillon with SECA (slush) funds…is this reimbursement from the park district going back into the SECA (slush) fund or going into the general fund?

T.B.

Chris--

As the holiday season progresses, can you maybe make a suggestion to someone there to publish a short story about this with a list of the local food banks? I think that would be a great help to those in need.

T.B.

Give any chance you can.

With an economy based on your net worth being a few entries in a couple of databases somewhere... you can be one snap of the finger from being in the 'clientele' line.

I was out and about with my daughter today, and dropped some bags of groceries off at the Kendall County Food Bank in Yorkville where she lives. I asked if they had the ability to buy in bulk with cash donations and was told that for every dollar donated, they can purchase six dollars of food. Now, I'm not sure what retail prices they use for comparison, but that sounds like a pretty good bang for my buck. I am sure all the food banks in our area are similar. I usually donate through my church and still will, but I think I will also look into what some of my local food pantries are doing with cash donations, as well as food donations. I know the pantries must also be up to speed on what types of foods are best, what their clientele could use the most of.