1,

Gee, getting just a wee bit demanding aren't you?

I'll be getting to it now that the election's over. Does this mean I'm going to drop everything to do it? No, especially if it's going to be 70-80 degrees this week-end.

Thom Higgins

QE203.org

..and yet ithe Taxpayer Ticket money you refer to was NOT union money!

Thus, avoiding the conflict-of-interest that the union-backed candidates had, which was so obvious even a Sorosian could see it!

And behold! No money laundering! No presto chango! No sneakiness!

Oh, some more tidbits: the State filings of IPAC, NUPACE, and PURE did not match in dates and dollars, and yes, deadlines were completely missed.

But heck, who needs to follow dumb little State of Illinois rules when you have the alll-powerful Union on your side!

It is interesting----- you do not try to correct anything related to the IPACE/NUPACE/PURE money flow. Instead, you try to deflect by attacking others ---- again!

You are incorrect, by the way: It is impossible to be "over the top" on PURE as what they did, and what she tried later in other elections, was disgusting on all levels,

The attack that was coordinated along with the Teacher's Union on three of their own neighbors in 203 was putrid.

They had total disregard for them as neighbors, as people, or their families and children.

Let me be very clear: THAT WAS UNETHICAL AND MORALLY WRONG!

It was the usual Teacher's Union thuggery, pure and simple (pun intended).

By the way, did you EVER think of going down the path that perhaps it is ALL wrong?

Nahhh! What was I thinking there? To do that you would actually have to step away from your role as 203 cheerleader and look at tthe facts and data!

Who the

You got me thinking with all your comments about the 2007 election. Just wondering, did you ever look at the Taxpayer's Ticket D2's? Considering how you went on about PURE I'm sure you will be unhappy with them as well.

Go look, they didn't report until July 19th! Their pre-election report had no detail information and was incorrect. They amended it after the election. And look! they paid for Robo-calls. Not very transparent eh?

Paid their bills late too. So much for fiscal responsibility.

BTW I think your comments are fairly over the top about PURE and the one incident with a e-mail but hey, go for it.

Thom Higgins

QE203.org

I did.

The problem is that I had to work so hard to find the past data,and it was NOT available until so far after the election that it was useless, and there are SO many apologists like yourself who are incapable of even questioning the current Board, that I have ongoing concerns about this election.

I like change. I don't like the status quo (anywhere). Ican see so many ways to improve 203. Apparently you don't.

:)

I forgot to mention two other items:

First, in-kind type of contributions. The amount of effort put in by the unionized employees to ensure their preferred candidates get elected has been signficant

Second, in 2007 one of the elected Union negotiators (a teacher employed by 203), illegally used District 203 time and equipment (both paid for by the taxpayers) to actively campaign to get one of their bosses (ie Board members ) unelected.

At that time, there was virtually no action by the District. In fact, the then-Superintendent would not even entertain the thought/idea of looking for more violations!

Given that attitude by the district admin, we will never know if the union is pulling the same games in this election.

Hey, once a crook always a crook, right?

Thom Higgins:

Nope!
If I read your post [Thom Higgins | March 29, 2011 8:51 PM | Reply], you could not be more wrong. You SEEM to be saying there was not union money in the 2007 election cycle. Let me edify you.

Although it is legal to do so, the following series of events can only be seen as money laundering and in my opinion certainly was done in the manner described to hide the actual origin of the monies from the taxpayers and citizens of the community (note this info is right off of the State filings):

>In the 2007 election, IPACE funneled $15,000 to NUPACE on or around 3/22/07

>NUPACE than bundled that with another $18,000 or so of their union dues and then NUPACE funneled that total of almost $33,000.00 of money into the 203 school board election. The main funneling was as follows:

-NUPACE funneled about $7500 into the 203 election for “polling”

-NUPACE funneled about $23,500 to the organization PURE in three trunches on or about 4/3, 4/17, and 4/25 of 2007. PURE was an organization fronted by Dianne McGuire (yes, the same Dianne McGuire now trying to run for, and ruin, COD)

-Dianne McGuire’s PURE than funneled the $23,500 into the 203 Board election for political consulting and mailings on 4/24/07, all to elect three Teacher Union endorsed candidates.

Significantly, the main product of all of this sneaky and well-hidden-from-the-public spending was the election of three Teacher Union endorsed candidates (Price/Jaensch/Fielden) who then became responsible for the 80% of the district spending that goes to union members.

I will also add that the main purchased “consulting” appears to have been a push poll that was a biased and unethical attack on the three neighbors in 203 who were running against the Teacher Union backed candidates as the Taxpayer’s Ticket.

If I am incorrect on this data, please let me know ASAP so I can update my records. Given the data is right off of the State filings, I will be surprised if it is incorrect, though.

Questions?

Regarding Mr. Denys comments:

Mr. Denys seems to feel Hinsdale 181’s website is superior to 203’s (he brought up the issue, not me). My comment was that when you spend almost $3000 more per student you can afford a really nice website and staff to maintain it.

I will mention that at a recent D203 school board meeting Dr. Mitrovich did preview a very slick website called “Actions and Initiatives” I believe. When it goes live residents will be able to see what initiatives the District is working on and click deeper into individual initiatives to get a more detailed look at each one. Very cool. Mitrovich mentioned that he has a young student building the site for 203, need to keep the cost down.

Mr. Denys seems to also want me to do his work for him. I’ll pass. It would do him good to spend some time on 203’s website.

But the biggest laugh is his reference to Dr. Mitrovich, who in his latest guest editorial commented on certain “unwritten rules” by immediately listing them. Mr. Denys continuing obsession with trying to twist this into something it’s not illustrates how desperate he is to find something to complain about.

For -1:

You can have FTE reductions for declining enrollment and larger class size and at the same time add some new FTE positions as well. You can find this referenced in the 203 website if you look. Remember the question was what is the breakdown of the $15M in cost savings between the two projections.

Oh, and I’m enjoying the growing suspense, you?

For Who The:

No, 2007 was a one off due to the concern that Mr. Davitt and Mr. Denys would be elected to the school board. In 2009 they spent something like $6K in printing and postage to teachers in Naperville. I believe they are doing the same this year. A certain young candidate held a flier of some sort up from the NUEA at the NAHC forum last week.

Thom Higgins

QE203.org

Hey!

Can anyone tell yet if the Teacher unions are funneling money into this election like they did in 2007?

Back then, IPACE snuck $$$ to NUPACE, who than snuck it to PURE, who then put it into the election to support the Union-endorsed candidates (the same 3 running this year)

If not, does anyone knwo WHEN that info will be available?

Tonight’s thoughts:

For -1,

I asked Dave about it at a recent SB meeting. He is the source.

For CHL,

The Facilities Sub-Committee minutes issue is a complete Red Herring. If anyone wanted to know what is happening then all they had to do was attend or watch the meetings. Ranchview and Prairie’s renovations were discussed/voted on up at the November-January-March BOE meetings. It was also discussed at various sub-committee meetings.

There is a mountain of information about the facilities effort including financials on the website. The monthly report has the initial projected costs and revenues as well as actual costs and revenues.

Your contract statement is incongruous, two years? The latest NUEA contract is less than a year old.

For Enough,

Tell us how a $6M reduction equals 6%?

I have never heard anyone say the District can’t reduce staff costs due to lower enrollment.

I sincerely doubt (OK I will guarantee) the District will end up with a $75M surplus. ain’t gonna happen.

Clearly communicate their position about what?

Thom Higgins

QE203.org

It is outrageous that Thom Higgins thinks the issue of transparency is a red herring!!!!!!

Regardless of your political beliefs, the simple facts that:

1) Our district 203 believes complying with FOIA requests represents compliance

2) Fielden's unconscionable act of hiding over half a year of subcommittee minutes from the public

3) There is NOTHING on the website that breaks down the last referendum by project showing what we voted for, and approved, versus either actual or current projection by project

4) The promised contracts were hidden from the public for about 2 years (and appear to have been finally made available only because of pressure from other candidates and citizens)

There is much more, but these get the point across.

One would have to temporarily suspend disbelief, and bank on the productivity of diminutive thinking, to even THINK this represents transparency!

-1,
In response to your question here is a brief breakdown on the savings:

1. Salaries, everybody (including admin and non-union) got 0% raises difference of $6 mil.
2. FTE reductions $1.4 mil. (enrollment declines and larger class sizes)
3. Lower benefit costs due to lower salary $1.5mil.
4. Health Insurance less due to lower claims, wellness program, etc. $1.8 mil.
5. No TIF bond payment $3 mil.
6. Other budget reductions (supplies, tech, transportation, reduced Prof Development) $1 mil.

As to your comments about the NAHC, most, if not all, of us are active in different parts of the public sphere. We do so with the understanding that our work with the Confederation does not invalidate our First Amendment rights to free speech in other areas.

A quick comment on Mr. Denys latest post:

In trying to make something out of nothing he notes a comment made in a recent guest editorial in the Sun by Supt. Mitrovich, namely: When I came to this district, there were several unwritten financial goals and realities by which the district had to operate and that would govern what we do today: Dr. Mitrovich then goes on to list them. How Mr. Denys could try to weave this into his latest Red Herring "Transparency" is laughable.

Thom Higgins

QE203.org

Dan D.,

Is that the same CEO who told the Rotary that transparenct is represented by complying with FOIA requests?

Yet another misdirect by TH!

He claims the checkbook is online ~~~ of course, by online he means one would have to go to "board docs" and read through reams of data to HOPEFULLY be able to determine actual cash spent.

THAT is NOT transparency!!!!

Transparency would be a quick link on the website that takes you right to the cash activity (ie it would look amazingly like yourtout checkbook!).

Of course, this would require that they be open and honest with all citizens, INCLUDING the taxpayers with and without kids in the system.

~~~ Luke

To: Anonymous replied to comment from CoolHandLuke | March 21, 2011 3:12 PM |

Nice post and I wholeheartedly agree, especially your last paragraph.

I would doubt that they would avoid legal advice. In fact, I think the legalities are a minor issue. No one is going to be fined or jailed for violating the Open Mtg Act (especially in the way it appears, if true, to have been done). It seems to me that if so, it was just a miscue borne out of a level of arrogance by the Board, not a real attempt to deceive the State.

Listen, I really don't want, or expect, this to turn into a lawsuit of any kind with any damages at all. By biggest disappointment is that the group is so dysfunctional that they couldn't go into a backroom and fix it without airing all their dirty laundry in front of us and the entire world. There are so many questions, new ones from the other night, even, that make me wonder why they are willing to look so petty by ganging up on one of their own? It makes them all look weak, ineffective, vindictive, and small.

Let’s get with running this great district!

---Luke

Uh, TH:

You are quick to be smug in your answers at times, such as your post where you refer to “erroneous claims”.

Since I think I made most of them, let me edify you with the stated knowledge that I posted “..posted on a TIMELY basis”. Does this mean you believe 6 month, and several year, delays are “timely”? I think it would be obvious to anyone, no matter how much of a proponentr you are for anything, that the items in question (teacher’s contract and the subcommittee minutes, in particular) were posted so late as to be the very definition of negligent from the viewpoint of a population asking for transparency (and being told regularly by the district that we are getting it).

Your references, above, are actually wrong in either your interpretation or approach to the original requests. So, to rectify, can you please direct ALL of us, via keystrokes, to the following:

>the monthly or qrtly actual versus estimated costs, by each project, on the construction costs related to the referendum?

>the reconciliation of projections from one to the next?

How about an easy one: provide the keystrokes to the checkbook (and proof it reconciles to the cash flow statement).

Thanks ahead of time.

--Luke

QE203 should be ashamed of themselves!

Go to their site and read their insensitive, personal attackes on Bethaney Weeks.

Guys, WHO CARES where she lives? Did you research to see where the other candidates lived at age 26? If not, why not?

Can't you guys ever try to remember that these are your neighbors, regardless of thteir political philosophies?

QE203 has reached a NEW LOW on this one. It takes me back to the PURE activities in 2007.

Shame on all of you!

A few general comments in response to some erroneous claims being made:

You can find the various contracts under the “Human Resources” tab on the Naperville203.org website

D203 has been posting its monthly checkbook in Board Docs under the “Bills and Claims” tab for at least a year.

Likewise, you can find a breakdown of the costs for the facilities re-construction under the “budget” tab in Board Doc’s.

The facilities subcommittee has its own agenda’s and minutes. They can be found at the “Meeting Dates, Agendas and Minutes” page on the Naperville203.org website.

As for the comment regarding a new compensation system that includes “Pay for Performance” metrics, and the allegation that this can only mean massive salary increases, that’s rather amusing. Anyone who has spent even a modest amount of time reading about education issues understands that from “Race To the Top” nationally, to educational initiatives here in Illinois from the ISBE, everyone, and I mean everyone, is talking about some kind of merit pay system. It is unfortunate that Mr. Denys continues to take innocent comments and spin the same tale out of it, namely overly large salary increases for teachers.

In that same vein Mr. Denys is trying to spin a tale using the various projections. I’ll comment that the February 2009 projection indicated that in the 2010-2011 fiscal year expenses would be $234M. They are expected to be $219M or $15M less. This is due to a number of cost cutting moves made by the District that Mr. Denys ignores. Likewise he is using a current projection to claim the District will have $50M in excess operating funds. I have two comments. (1.) If the District is planning on massive raises why isn’t that shown on the projection and the surplus goes away? (2.)This projection is predicated on the State funding education at 100%, something that is highly unlikely. Does Mr. Denys want to guarantee all the financial assumptions on this projection will come true? He should if he wants to claim the District will have $50M in excess funds.

Lastly, Mr. Denys has a bad habit of putting words in people’s mouth. I sincerely doubt Gerry Cassioppi made the statement Mr. Denys claims he did.

Thom Higgins

QE203.org

Based on today's article, we can now see that this 203 School Board acts in a way that leads me to believe they think they are above the law!

Why? Today's Sun article makes it clear that they failed to comply with a 20-year old opinion that is quite clear in it's substance: Matters not on the agenda cannot be acted upon and they do not have the authority to sanction a fellow member for discussing info discussed in a closed session!

Really, guys? 20 years and you still can't get it right?

Let's face it: the censure was, in my opinion, politically based and had nothing to do with the legalities of running a school district.

It is also my opinion that this board has become a group of partisan-minded bullies, working within a non-transparent world of their own creation, who treat those who do not "see" on their idealogical plane with an obvious form of disdain, and who view certian taxpayers as the enemy.

They can easily prove to me otherwise:

>Put the checkbook on the internet;
>Create and publish minutes and notes on a timely basis (say, where is that last teacher's contract again? Where are those finance advisory board and NCHS construction committee notes again);
>How about monthy or quarterly updates on the NCHS construction costs versus the estimates that accompanied the referendum?
>How about reconcilitaions for the widely-varying projections that come out of the district?

The list goes on, but it is a good start.

In case anyone cares....

2009-2010 ..using 20% paycut to 20% raise filter. Salary2009 and Salary2010 calculated for each of the n included teachers. For each teacher Ti, Ti(2010)/Ti(2009)= Mi is salary multiplier.

AVERAGE RAISE (Geometric Mean) = 5.36%
Nth root of all included salary multipliers.
-1 + Power(M1*M2*...*Mn,1/n)

AVERAGE RAISE (Arithmetic Mean) = 5.45%
(Sum of all salary multipliers)/N .
-1 + (M1+M2+...+Mn)/n

Increase in Average Incumbent Salary = 5.16%
Ratio of sum of salaries of people there in 2010 and 2009. Similar to LINE1.
[T1(2010)+T2(2010)+...+Tn(2010)]/[T1(2009)+T2(2009)+...+Tn(2009)] - 1

I'll try to post new sheet in a few weeks.

-1

Anonymous wrote:

Just because QE203.org aka Thom Higgins operates a website and therefore has the ability to link to whatever political view he supports should not put other posters on Potluck at a disadvantage in terms of freedom of speech. The average poster isn't going to go out and start up a website just to be able to express their view of candidates and issues. To even suggest they should is disingenuous.

Not disingenuous at all. Nobody is forced to follow the links, or to read what is on QE203.org, if they do follow them. Moreover, the barrier to entry to setting up a blog is extremely low, and pretty much anyone with an ounce of motivation to do it can do it. If you think it is so "unfair" that Thom posts links to his site, what is stopping you from offering your own alternative? And so what if QE203 is a PAC?

I DO agree, though, that Thom does often make reference to the website in such a way as to lead one to believe that it offers independent confirmation of the points he makes on Potluck, and that this is misleading.

Thom,

Just to clarify there is a big difference between someone who disagrees with you and someone who is attacking the district.

There is also a big difference between an unjustified attack and responsible citizens demanding the best from elected officials and the most for their hard earned tax dollars.

A reasonable person would be ashamed or at least embarrassed by all the attention QE203.org has received. Very telling that you find this amusing. Just further illustrates that all of this is just a game to you.

If QE203.org (and you) really wants to do some good you could start by learning how to be honest and trustworthy. Maybe then you could build some credibility and your QE203.org "group" could actually grow to more than just 3 people.

All,

I have to say I'm honored, (amused?) at all the attention QE203.org's getting here.

All I can say is lighten up!

We're trying to do some good here in town, The information on the QE203.org website exists to help people better understand public education broadly, and D203 narrowly.

There are those that are just as committed to attacking the District, that's their right, but I will note we at least put our names on our website and I on my posts here in the blog. Something most of the rest of your won't do.

Thom Higgins

QE203.org

Woo hoo!!! Go Dave Weeks, love that you are taking legal action against this Union thug school board.

Links of interest:

STAGE Q&A

Naperville Sun Profiles

Fielden Daily Herald Profile

Fischer Daily Herald Profile

Jaensch Daily Herald Profile

Price Daily Herald Profile

Weeks Daily Herald Profile

NACPAC endorsement NOT linked so as not to annoy the moderators.

-1

Have to love the irony of an anonymous poster writing a few thousand words questioning who QE203.org is.

This person, and whoever else is interested, might find the following Illinois State Board of Elections D2 of interest: QualityEducation203.org /a>

And for anyone interested in the upcoming District 203 school board election, be sure to go to our Voter's Guide on the QE203.org website. It's a one click resource for all the information available on the candidates. We have the candidate’s answers to our questionnaire, as well as, links to the Naperville Sun, Daily Herald, Naperville Patch and Stage203 profiles and questionnaires.

We are listing candidate endorsements as papers and organizations make them. QE203.org will be making ours sometime next week.

Thom Higgins

QE203.org

TRUTH or DECEPTION???

Thom Higgins is at it again with making references to QualityEducation203.org.

How many readers on Potluck have stopped and asked themselves any realistic who, what, why, when, how kinds of questions about QE203?

Is QE203.org a real organization or is it just Thom Higgins personal bully pulpit? Does QE203.org really represent a "group" of SD 203 residents or is QE203.org really nothing more than just Thom Higgins? TRUTH or DECEPTION???

QE203.org is a website with a .org address so it is supposed to be some kind of "organization" which also generally is intended to mean it was formed to be non-commercial in nature. But beyond an online presence and appearance is QE203.org really a real, bona-fide organization? TRUTH or DECEPTION???

The following are some more relevant questions to help sort through this: Is QE203.org an organization that has been properly registered with the state of Illinois? Did QE203.org properly pay filing fees? Does QE203.org have enough directors and are they all active? Has QE203.org filed articles of incorporation with the Secretary of State? Has QE203.org created bylaws? Has QE203.org registered with the Attorney General? Has QE203.org properly applied for state and federal tax exemption? Has QE203.org filed federal and state tax returns and other legally required reports? TRUTH or DECEPTION???

It seems no one ever mentions QE203 except Thom HIggins. Why is that? QE203.org states this about themselves: "QualityEducation203.org is a group of Naperville district 203 parents and residents who believe in the value of public education and support the excellent educational value of Naperville Community Unit School District 203." What exactly does QE203.org mean by "group"? No where on the QE203.org website does it list any actual membership numbers. The only names provided are: "Peter Shulman, Co-Chair, Thom Higgins, Co-Chair, and John Brubaker, Treasurer" with no mention if any of these three are directors of QE203.org or if there are any other directors or members, how directors and officers are elected, terms of service for directors and officers, etc. Also interesting is there is no mention of any periodic organizational meetings, no mention of any annual meetings, no mention of meeting minutes or organizational records, and more telling there is no mention of how expressed QE203.org opinions or position statements are determined. TRUTH or DECEPTION???

Yesterday, Thom Higgins started promoting the QE203.org "questionnaire" to school board candidates. No where does the QE203.org website identify any process used by QE203.org to develop the questionnaire, who participated in the development, how questionnaire input from others in the QE203.org"group" was encouraged or accepted, when any of this was done, or how each of the candidates was contacted. So was this truly a QE203.org "questionnaire" that qualified candidates spent valuable time completing or was this really just Thom Higgsins personal questionnaire that he sent to candidates without any true authority or oversight from QE203.org? TRUTH or DECEPTION???

Also interesting is there is no information posted about how anyone can become a member of QE203. So what exactly is QE203.org? Is QE203.org a real organization serving as a voice for some unknown "group", or is QE203.org really just 3 people, or is QE203.org really just Thom Higgins? Does Peter Shulman or John Brubaker exist? Are they real people? Does anyone know them? If they are real then why doesn't Peter Shulman or John Brubaker or anyone else in the QE203.org "group" ever have anything to publicly state about QE203.org and it's activities? TRUTH or DECEPTION???

The QE203.org does have a "Help Us" link with detailed information on how "donations" to QE203.org can be made in a variety of ways. Legally that became a game changer for QE203.org once it started soliciting and accepting public donations. QE203.org does not appear to be a registered charity, church or religious organization, or a private foundation. And QE203.org clearly states on their website that they are not an IRS 501(c)3 which means it IS NOT a non-profit organization. So what exactly is QE203.org and what is QE203.org doing with any "donations", is QE203 properly handling such donations, and has QE203 broken any state or federal tax laws? Is QE203.org a proper legal entity that is operating within the law? TRUTH or DECEPTION???

QualityEducation203.org has posted our 2011 Voter’s Guide for District 203 school board candidates on our website. We have the candidate’s answers to our questionnaire, as well as, links to the Naperville Sun, Daily Herald, Naperville Patch and Stage203 profiles and questionnaires. It’s a one click resource for information on the upcoming D203 school board election.

We will be making our recommendations next week, and will also be listing the endorsements from local newspapers and organizations as they occur.

Don't forget to the Naperville Area Homeowners Confederation District 203 Candidate Forum, March 24th at 7:30 PM in the City Council Chambers of the Naperville Municipal Center. It will be broadcast live on WCNC (Channel 6 (WOW) Channel 10 (Comcast) and Channel 99 (AT&T). You will also be able to watch the forum on demand after the event at the City’s Website here. Click on the "City Events and Educational Videos" tab.

Thom Higgins

QE203.org

This school board is CORRUPT!

The only proof we need is the lack of transparencyion their dealings. From the 2002 referendum, to the "dark of night" contract extension when they thought the Tax Tix would win, to the uneeded last referendum, to the huge surplus they are building on our backs (and in violation of their own rule), to the nonsense of the NCHS rebuild and the ,ack of strike protection and the "money is no object" mentality.

Frankly, it makes me ill!

If any D203 candidates are reading, let this be this template for answering such a question.

Q: As an incumbent, what have you accomplished so far?

A: Any accomplishments belong to the board, not me alone.

D204 Candidate Profiles

-1

A little this and that tonight:

Some information for Numbers Do talk:

In 1994 the OEPP was $5597 in 2010 it’s $11,219. Over a 20 year period, D203’s OEPP has averaged 99% of the state average.

Needless to say comments such as the following have no basis in fact: “First, the spending per student in 203 has more than doubled in a few short years.” and “…our trend is one of the worst in the state.”

Hardly.

Likewise I refer the interested reader to What is the Best Educational Value in Chicagoland? Look at 203’s costs compared to the other top performing CUSD’s and HS District’s, and then ask yourself in any of the hyperbole here makes any sense. I ask the reader to note how much The New Trier system spends vs. D203 as it’s been such a hot topic here.

Lastly, I’ll mention that Numbers Do Talk's post today at 11:55 AM is a beaut. It is a perfect example of a District trying to provide information, only to have it twisted. First, the 1-31-2011 projection is based on the assumption that the State will continue to fully fund GSA at 100%, among other assumptions. This is far from a sure thing, and the projection does not constitute any kind of guarantee by the District that its fund balances will be as stated.

I think D203 did the right thing in abating the DSL saving the taxpayers $3M. This is the second time in three years it has done so. There was discussion of abating the DSL through the 2018 Levy if the financial conditions warrant. The District has shown its willingness not to tax for every dollar it can. Can it do more in the future? Possibly, but we need to have some clarity on State funding first.

For Number Do Talk to somehow take a possible surplus that would take years to accrue and plug it into one year is nonsensical. And, of course, the humorous aspect is even if you do that, the amounts referenced are comparable to what Lisle 202 spends each and every year, not to mention a host of North Shore High Schools!

A comment about -1’s post of 3-8 @ 4:43PM, it is, as it relates to characterizations ascribed to me, complete and utter fantasy on his part. His writing style of acting as prosecutor, judge and jury is, shall we say, a bit overblown.

As he has been good enough to give me his list of questions, I will shortly, (meaning sometime in the next week or so) post a detailed response.

Thom Higgins'

QE203.org

WOW!!!!

DanD. popped a nugget on us that we all have missed!

The surpluses do NOT get included in the cost per student, but are on our tax bill.

How did we all miss that!

Let's look at the math:

Current students -- est 18,000
Current Spending --- est 205,ooo,ooo
Current Cost per Student---$11,400

Now, if we add in the surpluses (current and expected), the numbers change for Cost prer Student:

At $18 million surplus ---est $12,400
At $35 million surplus ---est $14,500 with expect enroll decrease and add'l spend))
At $71 million surplus -- est $17,400 with expect enroll decrease and add'l spending)

These are astronomical numbers and blow away the State averages!

Wake up!!!

Change this with YOUR vote?

Get the encumbants OUT OF THERE!

They have taken ENOUGH!

Ah, we are back to the spending per student.

Well, if we must..........

First, the spending per student in 203 has more than doubled in a few short years

Second, there is a "thang" in economics called economies of scale

Now, both of the above bode NOT well for 203!

qe203 likes to use the test results and cost-per-head as a reaosn why 203 is such a deal By itself those are not bad things to use. However, and this is a HUGE however, our trend is one of the worst in the state AND, given our massive size, 203 SHOULD have spending well below the state average snce we, as one of the 18 largest, should have distinct economies of scale.

We once did have those economies, but since Weber and as 2000 rolled around we in 203 got careless with our dollars as we allowed others, such as the Union and groups like PURE and qe203, to change the narrative from "203 is great at a great price!" to one of "203 is great at any price, as long as we stay one dollar below anyone else!"

Proof?

Just look at the overcollections (that continue into perpituity) on the 2002 referendum,

just look at the sneaky contract signing in 2007 when the union thought the Tax Tix might win,

just look at the past threats of stike, just look at the massive overcollections now as evidenced by the huge surpluses, blah, blah, blah.

Wake up, folks. We are an accident waiting to happen.

By the way, is there any real data out there on how well students do in college and in life once they leave high school?

It’s boring to keep going over the same thing so this will be brief:

Naperville 203 spends $11,219 per pupil.

New Trier/feeder elementary schools combined spend $16,660 per pupil, an amount that is surpassed only by Lisle 202 next door! and Lake Forrest.

How do the raise such sums? The average combined tax rate is comparable D203’s and the median price, (hence EAV) is significantly higher than D203.

Mr. Denys wants to talk about Wilmette 39? Be happy to. 2007 tax rate 2.26 + 1.66 for New Trier = 3.92. Not far off D203’s 4.07. However the median home in Wilmette is $536K, meaning taxes on the median price house is $7,004.

So, can anyone dispute that the New Trier system spends almost 50% more than D203? Not legitimately. Can they legitimately say that taxes are lower in spite of the fact that home values are significantly higher and the tax rates are quite close regardless? Not in my book, but they sure are trying. It’s fun to watch actually.

For -1,

Not interested in Whack-a-Mole. If you have specific questions you know what to do: 1 post, numbered questions. I’ll respond. If you want to vent, have a ball, but I’m not playing.

For Furstenau’s backhand:

Yeah I know, but I’m writing for the rational people reading the blog. I’m sure hoping there are some. Otherwise this is a complete waste of time.

OK one more for -1:

If the District administrators could look into the future perfectly they would be outbidding John Paulson for some Caribbean Island.

Off to bed early yeah!!!!!

Thom Higgins

QE203.org

-1 wrote:

Folks, I'd ignore Winnetka, Wilmette, Lake Forest and other such taxation comparisons.

Amen!

Anyone having problems opening up the QE203.org District 203 candidate Q&A's needs to update their Adobe Reader.

We are adding an Election Link's page to the QE203.org website to offer a single source for D203 candidate information, including links to the Naperville Sun and Daily Herald profiles, the STAGE Q&A, as well as information regarding the Naperville Area Homeowners Confederation D203 Candidate Forum (March 24th)

As various papers and groups offer their endorsements we will be reporting them as well.

Thom Higgins

QE203.org

Don't forget this current school board hired Dr. Mitrovich and READERS of this blog pointed out AFTER THE FACT, that Mitrovich's diploma was from a DIPLOMA MILL school. It embarrassed this board tremendously when it happend on their watch.

(school report cards)

Consolidating Districts.

This may sound really dumb, but how does the state save money on district consolidation?

-1

QE203,

The Q&As are not opening ("Bad Encrypt" messages.

Thom, you might as well just not even reply to all of this. No matter what you say, with whatever facts to back it up, it's never good enough for people on this blog. They'll think what they want to think, and believe what they want to believe. They're angry, bitter taxpayers, who think they should get the world for their money. The sad thing is that the 5-10 people that write in this blog are not representative of the public. This thread is entertaining and pathetic, all at the same time.

I guess the latest battle cry of the critics (at least until the next projection) is going to be the excessive fund balance story. Here’s a little perspective.

The Feb 2009 Projection created after CPI came in at .01% for 2008 with the expectation that CPI for 2009 would only be 1.1% is as follows:

Operating deficit in 2011-2012
District flat broke 2014-2015
Projected 2010-2011 revenue: $235.4M
Projected 2010-2011 expenses: $234.1M

November 2010 Projection based on the state curtailing General State Aid, various cost cutting efforts, and other assumptions:

Operating deficit in 2015-2016
District hits 10% fund reserve in 2018-2019
2010-2011 revenue: $234.4M
2010-2011 expenses $218.9M

Jan 2011 projection based on assuming that the State funds at 100% General State Aid for four years, along with a 1.9% CPU in 2013-2014:

Operating deficit in 2017-2018

District has significant fund balances through 2019-2020, assuming that all the assumptions play out. Mr. Zager was quite clear that State funding at 100% is uncertain at best. Suggestion made to yearly assess a DSL abatement through the 2018 levy if finances allow it.

.
When the 2009 projection came out (and for a long time afterward), critics were claiming another referendum was right around the corner. I ask you all look at the 2009 and 2010 projections and note the difference in the 2010 and 2011 expenses figure. It dropped $16M. This is the effects of the District cost cutting in order to stave off deficits.

We now have a projection that has very strong balances. The financial assumptions these balances are based on might come true, but more likely will not, the State being in financial difficulties even with the income tax increase. As was repeatedly stated my numerous board members, it is foolhardy to abate an amount in the Operating Levy until there is some clarity on where the state is and frankly the economy in general.

Bottom line the district just abated $3M in taxes. The second time in three years it has done so. Know of any other districts abating? If financial conditions warrant it and these fund balances actually occur going forward, then the District has some decisions to make. Some of you here want greater amounts abated. Others want to see the District expand programs and technology. Time will tell.

Thom Higgins

QE203.org

Dan,

In the game of Whack A Mole I think Thom has been the Mole for too long which is why he can't keep much of anything straight.

Thom,

There are plenty of $400K houses in other communities. If someone can afford a $400K house in Naperville, then they can probably only afford a $400K house anywhere. The only real difference is you may get more or less for your $400K in one place vs another.

The point isn't what the median house costs here or anywhere else dip stick. And I could care less if you want to use $400K, $500K, $600K or any other value. The point is only to pick a value and then use that representative value to compare district against district to see how much difference exists in how much we actually pay in school district taxes.

Once again you are being deceptive and misleading with "median" values because they serve no useful purpose to the discussion of comparative taxation. Median values in some communities might be higher or lower than median values in SD203. At the same time these other communities might be significantly smaller than SD 203 as well. We have our own fair share of new money McMansions that are paying $20K, $30K, and more in property taxes. I don't know if anyone has bothered to count up all the tear downs and other high priced real estate. The possibility does exist that we might even have more high end real estate than some of these other communities, only that the overall median value may be diluted because we a heck of a lot more low end real estate.

So far, and despite almost 600 posts on this thread alone, you still haven't proven your point. It is clear that the world does not possess enough Kaopectate to cure what oozes from your body to infect your keyboard while you continue to duck the difficult questions and issues. And your attempts to repeatedly deflect and change the focus of this discussion fools absolutely no one. At every opportunity to do the right and honorable thing you have consistently chose the low road which only exposes yourself and more importantly, your character, for what it truly is and what it represents.

Some have posted that you are nothing more than a shill for the teachers union. I don't know for a fact if that allegation is true or not. What does worry me is if you are truly a shill for the teachers union then those of us who love our children and who love Naperville have much more important issues that we need to face and reckon with if the likes of you and your character are any kind of reflection of the SD 203 teachers union character and values which they expose our children to on a daily basis. And if you are not a shill for for the teachers union then all that makes you is another sad excuse for a keyboard bully and forum troll who has more free time on their hands than brains to actually roll up their sleeves and come up with solutions to real problems in SD203. Since you obviously have more time on your hands than you know what to do with why don't you run for the SD 203 School Board or are you and the teachers union afraid to find out how few people would actually vote for you so instead you fall back on all you have left and that is to continue to stir the pot?

Kind of a pity. Channeled positively you might once have had an opportunity to be a community leader. Nothing worse than a missed opportunity is when someone slams the door in their own face. Tragic, really.

A little more for the Dan Denys DECEPTION OR IGNORANCE??? tour

I did a quick weighted average based on ADA using the the 2007 tax rates on all the feeder districts for New Trier. Combined with New Trier they equal 4.04. Essentially equal to D203's 4.07.

So, one more time:

D203 median price house $4,341 in taxes.
New Trier median price house $12,120 in taxes.

One can only wonder about the rest of the schools in Mr. Denys example. No doubt they are as accurate as his New Trier example.

Gotta go, off to Ballydoyle's for dinner.

Thom Higgins

QE203.org

On the main blog page, there is an area called "RECENT COMMENTS"
It has always been there.
If you look through those you can click right to the recent comments on a blog without having to scroll down. If you mouse over each one, you can find what blog it is part of.
Most of the time, as someone who only checks the blogs maybe twice a day at the most, this works perfectly. OIccasionally, if there have been a lot of postings, I have found that I might have to scroll up to find some I may not have read.
Let's go back to scrolling down and use the links in RECENT COMMENTS instead.

So some think it is easier to go all the way to the end then scroll versus just look at tje bottom of the first page?

No wonder u guys can't even agree on basic facts!

The new format is the only one that makes sense 4 those of us
Using a smart phone (we can't ask stay home to blog).

For -1

As I'm uninterested in playing whack-a-mole, please make you FOIA comments in some kind of numerical/alphabetical order. How about we give you and anyone else till next Friday to post comments in an easily followable format. I will then respond to them point by point.

Thom Higgins

QE203.org

Tonight’s thoughts:

D203 spends $11,219 per student

New Trier/feeder elementary schools combined spend $16,660 per student.

The median home price in Naperville is around $320K.

The median home price in Winnetka is around $900K

D203 taxes on median price home: $4,341.00 (2007 tax rate of 4.07)

New Trier taxes on median price home: $12,810.00 (2007 tax rate of 1.66 New Trier and 2.61 Winnetka elementary. Combined rate 4.27)

It is notable that even with Winnetka’s significant differential in home values they still have a higher tax rate, contra Mr. Deny’s continuing assertions to the contrary.

My numbers are close, I didn’t bother with homestead exemptions.

.

As to Mr. Denys continued fascination with the Cantera TIF and one of the District’s modeling projections displaying large surplus' I will simply re-state the following:

The District does a lot of projections, modeling differing assumptions. It is dangerous in the extreme to latch onto any one of them as “gospel”.

If you look at the November projection you will see that it shows the District going negative in 2015-2016, with the operating fund balance falling below 10% in the year 2018-2019. This projection assumes, for levy purposes, a 1.0% CPI for 2012-2013 and 1.5% CPI for 2013-2014. Further, it assumes in 2011-2012 that General State Aid is zeroed out, with a 10% Mandated Categorical and 50% Non-Mandated Categorical cuts.

Since that projection was prepared two significant events occurred. First was the increase in the State income tax and, second, the CPI for 2010 came in at 1.5%.

A new projection dated 1-31-11 has the 1.5% CPI plugged in for 2012-2013 and an assumed 1.9% projection for 2013-2014 (this is the WSJ projection for CPI). Further it has General State Aid at 100% through 2014-2015. This pushed out the year the projection shows the district going negative to 2017-2018, although the amount for this school year is de minimis.

What is important to look at are the three fund balances for this Projection. The top is without any abatement of the DSL (Debt Service Levy) and the bottom is abating the DSL though the 2018 levy.

So, if everything in the projection turns out to actually happen, the District could end up with some very healthy fund balances. However, this does not mean that this is the course the District is planning on taking, nor is there any guarantee that the assumptions will play out as indicated. Even with the 2% income tax increase the State has more bills than funds to pay them. It is foolhardy to assume that the State will keep funding at 100% even for the four years. Please remember that there is talk of Districts picking up the 8.5% employer contribution for teachers pensions. That’s not in here. And finally, the projection assumes a 2.5% CPI, going forward, after 2014 I believe, which may or may not happen (this is the projected annual increase in our property taxes) and 4.0% rate of interest on investment income (this is a big increase from essentially zero these days) going forward.

Projections are “what if’s” they are not budgets. Indeed, the SB in 2007 was looking at projections that projected deficits in the current school year. Even with a flat operating levy one year, that has been pushed out to, certainly, 2015-2016. Part of the way this was accomplished was with $10 million in cuts/savings.

The decision by the SB was to abate this years DSL of $3M (1.6%), and await what the future brings with the thought that the District could reasonably abate the DSL though the 2018 levy if reality plays out close to what is assumed in the projection. Could it potentially do more? Sure, but they need to see what the future brings. Do I think we will see $65-75 million fund balances? No, and that doesn't mean they will spend it either.

Unfortunately Mr. Denys chooses to latch onto bits and pieces of the projections to further his personal ‘OVERTAXATION” argument.

What was Mr. Denys question again? DECEPTIVE OR IGNORANT???????

Thom Higgins

QE203.org

Dan D wrote:

New Trier includes Wilmette and there are $400,000 houses there. But the difference in taxes for a $ 1 million house or a $3 milion house are similarly higher in 203 than New Trier. The answer is that a houlse of the same value PAYS MORE in school taxes in Naperville 203 than Cook County 203 (New Trier high school has the same district number as Naperville).

What is the average home value in New Trier vs. Naperville 203? It it's significantly higher, then of course you'd expect tax rates to be lower there---unless the populated in New Trier expects gold-plated services.

Note to the Sun Editors:

Some posters complained about having to scroll through 500 posts to see the most recent comments at the bottom. Now that you have reversed the order of the posts, other people are complaining about having to read the post 'backwards'. I suggest that you go back to the oldest-on-top order, but start a new topic/thread to discuss District 203, and add a link on that topic's page to this page for those who want to review the topic's history.

Respectfully,

-JQP

At least Fielden in honest, he DEMANDS on increasing our taxes. His exact words:

"A school district is virtually forced by law to raise the tax rate by CPI each year or they lose the opportunity for tax dollars in the future."

So does Suzyn Price

"I believe we have to access the allowable (maximum) amount because to not do so will create a lower floor for next years revenues and quickly leads to deficits."

To be clear, increase taxes as much as possible if the District needs it or not. And if they exceed their reserve limit. And how do you have a deficit? You spend more than you need.

Price goes on to say "The issue seems to be more should we spend as much as we are allowed, or should we, to the extent that we are allowed by the tax cap legislation, fund reserves to extend our budgets."

Does this mean store up more money now to pay even more in the future?

A simple point (and I do not know what the other three candidate are saying--by the way Thom, you cannot access Fishers response). Tax for what you need. If you need more (say salaries need to increase more than the tax cap in the FUTURE), then ask the voters. If they say yes, give the salary increase. If they say no, then no.

Or if a new compenation system (or how about creating competition and privatizing all schools!!!!!!) came in and needed a tax increase, same issue.

From what we see from these two board members, IT'S ALL ABOUT THE UNION!!!!!!!

OBSERVATION ON DISTRICT 203 FINANCES

1. Thom has indicated that the 2.98% salary increase to returning teachers in 2012 will be offset by once again by turnover so costs will increaese by 1%. Also, another 1% reduction in enrollment. So let's say that the overall budget increases by 1%. That would be $2 million.

2. The District 203 operating budget typically has $3 million in "contingencies"--allowances for unforseen events (commonly called "PADDING"). This is IN ADDITION TO the current projected $18 million surplus in excess of the amount established by policy. (Also, the projected surplus is understated by this PADDING!!)

3. Total 2012 spending is "projected" to increase by $7 million????? It is projected to increae by $4 million at the end of this year (with $3 million in "PADDING"), a net increase of $1 million.

4. What is the real increase in spending in 2012 (particularly if the District kept spending in line with the increase in teacher salaries)? $3 million??

5. The referendum construction project is completed and fully funded by the end of 2012. No more money is needed.

6. How much extra money will District 203 get from the expiriing Cantera TIF in 2012? The District is estimating $3.5 million.

QUESTION

Why does the District need an extra $2.2 million from the current taxpayers (the 1.1% increase)?

Forget tax cap, DSL, PTELL (these are all techical terms for government taxation).

WHY MORE TAXATION??????

QE203.org has posted D203 school board candidate questionnaire responses on our website. The candidates answered 12 varied questions regarding D203 schools and operations, as well as, national educational issues

Thom Higgins

QE203.org

A note to the Sun Editors. I appreciate you giving this new orientation a try, but it makes following the thread difficult in my opinion as too much of the content refers to previous comments. If it was a thread commenting on say a newspaper article I think it would work fine, but not here.

All a reader had to do previously was press end key to get to the bottom and scroll up a bit. I think the old orientation is preferable.

My two cents.

Thom Higgins

QE203.org

For JQP:

The discussion is for the school districts to take over the state contribution of the pension cost. My memory is districts already pay a very tiny amount, something like .57%. I always thought that was weird. Teachers would continue making their contribution.

.
Regarding this comment: ” I noticed you ducked the truth part of the actual, increased, out-of-pocket cost to each property owners isn't just the percent increase the school board levies on us each year. The total increase the school district receives is whatever they raise the levy to PLUS however much more they get as an extra because our property value also went up.”

This poster is incorrect. School districts are only allowed to increase their operating levy by CPI. Meaning that if their prior year levy was $100M and CPI was 2.7% then their new levy would be limited to $102.7M. If the EAV increases at the same time, the rate is adjusted downward so that the funds received equal $102.7M. School districts do get additional funds from any new construction that is placed on the tax rolls.

.

Regarding this: ” Instead of operating expense per pupil why don't you use this same list of cities and post how much was paid in property taxes for a representative $400K house in each?”

Except that a $400K house in Naperville is a way different animal than a $400K house in Winnetka (is there such a thing?). The fact that D203 spends $11,219 per pupil and Winnetka spends $16,660 is significant. There are a host of districts locally that spend more than D203 and yet their students do not match D203 students ACT scores. Examples are: Downers Grove, Wheaton-Warrenville, Elmhurst, Geneva and St Charles. There are more but I don’t have the time to go through every one.

.
Regarding this: ”"The District will be using the Cantera tax receipts to replace the operating funds." Another lie. The District will have paid all of the cost and have $38 miillion in the bank by the end of 2012. Per Thom's renowned source, Dave Zager. This amount will grow to $71 million by 2017 if no future abatements are approved ($33 million increase, $23 million if debt is reduced

First, the Cantera property tax funds will contribute to any operating fund balance from which the District has/will deduct approx $33M to pay for the Facility re-construction costs. You can’t have it both ways. The projected fund balances are based on the District receiving the Cantera tax receipts.

Once again, the projection is just that, a projection, and is based on a number of assumptions that could very well not come to pass, namely, General State Aid funding and, potentially, the CPI and or interest assumptions might be off. It needs to be noted that the District is not saying this is what it expects the future to be. Further, the District does various modeling projections through the year, with different assumptions. The District is quite up front at the tenuousness of continued State aid and the other variables. I find it ironic that the same people who pounded that table in 2009 about the District going into an operating deficit are now latching onto the latest projection and decrying the District will have too much money.

.
As to the comments regarding the analysis contained in Overview of Teacher Salary Increases for Fiscal Years 2007-2010 I am pleased to offer this document to help Naperville residents better understand the dynamics of teachers salaries. I invite readers interested in the topic to take a look. Despite the many and varied criticism of it. Both myself and Mr. Zager are content with its validity, and will be offering a revised version shortly.

.
Lastly, regarding this: "My memory is it was Tom Cross who was talking to the D203 admin about this possibility.

” HUH?!?!?! The article was in the Daily Herald. John Cullerton, Illinoiis Senate Majority Leader--DEMOCRAT. The Chicago and downstate democrats are going to sell out the suburbs. Thom must have been eavesdropping on the Naperville Teachers Union Meeting.”

Someone needs to read more carefully. Mr. Zager was my sole source. And my memory is Dave told me that he, or perhaps Mark, was talking to Cross and was told that there was some talk of the State transferring the employer pension contribution to the Districts.

Thom Higgins

QE203.org

Sun,

Great job on the change of sequence!

Thom,

I'm confused now. Is the proposal that the districts should assume the payments that the teachers make to their pension? Or is it that the districts should take over some or all of the state's burden? I thought you meant the latter, but your post at March 2, 2011 4:51 PM makes it sound like it could be the former.

-JQP

Currently the total contribution by the State is supposed to be 18%-20% to make up for all the shortfalls,

Where is this from?

The 8.5% is calculated based on having to zero out the pension funding deficit by year 2XXX. If you read the TRS report, they even admit that the amount requested this year is too low since it is known that investment losses will be sent forward next year. I have not seen this 18%-20% number. Please cite a source. I think that number is close to true for the Naperville PD and FD pensions, and it wouldn't surprise me if it were true for TRS.

Thanks.

-1

Tonight’s comments:

I ask the reader to note -1’s post of March 2 @4:03 pm starts with a quote that he is incorrectly ascribing to me.

.

Re: “There is little question that the tax rate as a percentage of assessed value has increased due to plummeting property values.”

Actually, as the EAV is a trailing calculation, this coming tax levy will be the first to have a total EAV decline. (- 4.7% hardly plummeting). The total decline is estimated to be about 15% and is expected to end in 13-14. I heard Naperville’s Finance Director speak recently and she reported that Naperville’s residential home prices increased in 2010. Additionally, commercial sales are quite strong, doubling in volume over the prior year.

As to the DSL percentage as it relates to the total levy. -1’s point has some merit over the long term. Over four years, not so much.

As to -1’s comments regarding his FOIA efforts. I see some accusations. I see no back up. He has 118 pages. This is the best he can do? Really?

Re: ” A salary freeze ONLY would cause an immediate 8.5% increase in payroll costs. Is it fair to sock the taxpayer with that increase? How you can imagine that would not have to be shared by the employees is beyond me.”

The taxpayer is already paying (OK we, the taxpayer, are already paying, the State has other ideas for the money). It is unreasonable for any one group of employees to shoulder SS or pension costs in full when the majority of employees do not. The implementation of this idea, should it happen will be, shall we say, problematic?

Re: ”When 203 projects deficits, you all cry "Wolf!" and demand increases, full levies, and referendums.”

When the District saw an operating deficit in 2009 based on flat CPI for the coming year and uncertainties in State funding, it instituted a number of cost saving initiatives. There was no thought of an operating referendum, secondly, it can’t simply demand anything, and while you don’t like the Levy percentages (as they're too small I suspect) I stand by my prior comment here:

” If the projected CPI increases for 12-13 are correct, the State funding continues, and we have no surprises, we are looking at an average increase of 2.67% annually from 07-13. If we look at the years 09-13 when the facilities referendum bond repayment is due, the gross increase is 2.56% (including the DSL). As the voters approved an additional 1.6% to fund the referendum, the net difference is under 1% (.96%). You can look at it from various angles, but every year D203 abates the DSL it forgoes collecting $3 Million that it's legally entitled to collect.”

It is a fact that the District has abated two of the first three years of the Debt Service Levy. That’s $6M roughly in savings. This years abatement was suggested by the Dist’s Ast. Supt. for Finance, who indicated if the State continues to make payments then the District could look to abating the DSL through 2018. That would save us taxpayers $27M. The Citizens Finance Committee members were more conservative, counseling caution in abating the full DSL for this year.

Lastly, as I keep saying, there are a host of assumption implicit in any projection. If CPI isn’t 1.9% for FY 13-14 or 2.5% afterward, revenue, and consequently, fund balances could be much less. Continued full State funding is questionable. The District chose a path that saves taxpayers collectively $3M for this year. I understand them wanting to see what tomorrow brings for the rest.

Thom Higgins

QE203.org

JQP

Dave Zager is the source of my information. I'm thinking it was initially from our conversation after the last SB meeting. He could just as well mentioned it during the meeting publicly. It's come up a few times between us as we talk about the projections/budget.

My memory is it was Tom Cross who was talking to the D203 admin about this possibility, with the idea that school districts would (as I indicated above) fund the normal contribution of 8.5% of a teachers salary. Currently the total contribution by the State is supposed to be 18%-20% to make up for all the shortfalls, but they have missed some of these payments too, compounding the problem.

I haven't seen any of this in the papers but haven't looked for it either.

Hope that helps.

Thom Higgins
QE203.org

Sun,

Following someone's earlier post, why can't the posts be listed in reverse order?

I am fairly sophisticated and am well-aware it is an easy change. What the heck is your IT group telling you!

Sorry, but you cannot have it both ways!

When 203 projects deficits, you all cry "Wolf!" and demand increases, full levies, and referendums.

Now, when 203 projects HUGE surpluses, you cry "Not so hasty ---- these are only projections!"

Guess what? The same projection process that drove a referendum are more than adequate to demand a bigger abatement!

Grow up and quite acting as apologist and defender for 203.

As for the remainder of your comments, you have chosen a difficult and ultimately frustrating (for you) path in your decision to remain anonymous and FOIA-ing your way into my conversations with the District.

Au contraire. Not so hard at all. ANYONE can do it.

It was a district employee communicating with YOU which is why the sun can shine in.

It is you who is now using language NOT supported by Mr. Zager's initial answer and using wording which is clearly not his in your Q&A. He answered a question using some old report he gave to people who might understand the details of what he was saying in 2007.

He gave you an answer.

You added extra in and told Dan that was what Dave Z answered.

Later you added in subjective language which was nowhere near what the original answer or your altered answer had.

Now you add in italics and bold and other nonsense.

LINE1 was DanD's (incorrect) wording. Your alteration still is not correct. It does not represent average raise.

Please retract.

It is YOU who made this difficult. Name or no name, the truth is the truth.

And if you make more suspect statements, there is more info that ANYONE can access.
.
.
.
.
.

From a fairness perspective, just as employers are responsible for making matching SS payments for their employees I think you will have a hard time arguing that teachers should shoulder it all themselves by taking paycuts/freezes.

So you fail to recognize that employees DO shoulder part of the EMPLOYER SS burden via depressed salaries. If there was no employer SS match and all of a sudden there was a 8.5% SS match, I guarantee you that salary freezes/cuts would occur in private industry.

A salary freeze ONLY would cause an immediate 8.5% increase in payroll costs. Is it fair to sock the taxpayer with that increase? How you can imagine that would not have to be shared by the employees is beyond me. Calculate an ECI on that....

-1

Thom H. wrote:

Please remember that there is talk of Districts picking up the 8.5% employer contribution for teachers pensions.

Who is talking about this? Would this be a fixed percentage for the districts, or would they be on the hook for the entire cost of the pensions above what the employees contribute?

A few thoughts for -1:

As to the 8.5% pension issue, it was represented to me that the 8.5% was the base (normal) contribution. From a fairness perspective, just as employers are responsible for making matching SS payments for their employees I think you will have a hard time arguing that teachers should shoulder it all themselves by taking paycuts/freezes. I still wonder at the ramifications if it was implemented. We could absorb it. Many, many communities wouldn’t be able to, and I wonder what happens there.

As for the remainder of your comments, you have chosen a difficult and ultimately frustrating (for you) path in your decision to remain anonymous and FOIA-ing your way into my conversations with the District. As you now see, Dan and I shared emails back and forth with Mr. Zager (not that it worked all that well unfortunately). The mature, respectful action for you is to remove your figurative mask, and ask for a similar courtesy.

Thom Higgins

QE203.org

Always such fun here in the blog!

Anonymous @ 5:22 pm:

The percentages quoted are the actual increase in the tax levy over the previous year.
Easily verified by Warren or John. They are correct.

I re-iterate my warning regarding projections. A 2009 projection had the district operating fund going negative next year. Will that occur? No, of course not. To latch onto any one projection as "gospel" is foolhardy. Certain people used the 2009 projection to decry the Districts supposed spendthrift ways. Now the same people have turned on a dime and are complaining about excess fund balances.

And for the upteenth time, the District was very clear that the Cantera tax receipts were to be used to pay part of the facilities cost. Thanks to the strong fund balances the District was able to not float Tax Anticipation Bonds. for the Cantera tax stream. This action saved the interest cost those bonds would have incurred ($15M?). The District will be using the Cantera tax receipts to replace the operating funds.

Lastly, playing games with tax rates is cute, but not particularly illuminating. I could just as easily take communities with lower home values and play the game in reverse, as they have higher tax rates typically.

Controlling costs? Let's talk real dollars.

$17,785 Lake Forest

$16,730 Lisle!!!!!

$16,620 New Trier

$16, 444 Northfield

$15,670 Highland Park

$13,944 Stevenson

$13,601 Hinsdale

$13,520 Vernon Hills

$11,219 NAPERVILLE CUSD203

The above is the Operating Expense Per Pupil (OEPP) and is from the Illinois State Report Card. For more information go to: What is the Best Educational Value in Chicagoland?

Thom Higgins

QE203.org

The Real Value in Public Education

How many times does Higgins march out his link to the Daily Herald measure of spending per student and ACT scores? Do you feel good that the price per ACT is the lowest? In fact, what does that mean?

NOTHING!!!......ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!

Here are the property tax bills for elementary and high school education for a $450,000 house in each of Thom's districts

NAPERVILLE 203......................$5,688
New Trier (Wilmette)...................4,252
Northfield 225 (Northbrook)........4,727
Hinsdale......................................4,326
Lake Forest.................................2,953
Stevenson 125 (Lincolnshire).....6,316
Deerfield......................................6,052

And take lowly Lisle, their taxes are $5,443.

So where do you get the best value for your tax dollars? Thom, going to post this schedule on QE203?

Isn't it amazing that communities with more wealth than Naperville CONTROL what they pay the public unions? The must really be committed to the kids, rather than the teachers unions.

Looks like the current board has found Dean Rescke's famous "Wiggle Room".

Yes Thom, the 203 Board CONTINUES TO OVERTAX. They cannot afford to reduce taxes by $2.2 million? How much extra are they getting from Cantera this year? Foir the past 23 years, District 203 taxpayers paid more to subsidize Warrenville. Now that it is over, the 203 Board wants to pick up where Warrenville stopped.

Now don't paint us as radical crazy conservatives. Those guys want the taxes to be reduced by $38 million, the entire surplus.

The Board can live with the lower funds. If the pension costs get transferred to local school districts, then teachers should accept lower or no salary increases until the budget can absorb this shock. They have had 50 years of passing this cost to the state and bankrupting it.

And if the District loses $22 million of state funding primarily for special programs, then cancel the special programs to the extent possible.

And how can these numbers change by millions in just three months?

And stop lying to people about value in our town. Taxes for comparably assesed houses are lower in Wilmette (New Trier), Lincolnshire (Stevenson) and Lisle. We are not paying for ACT scores, we pay taxes. PERIOD.

This campaign of deception is simply intolerable. In the end, it is all about the teachers union, not the kids. Just like in Wisconsin.

And again, Higgins is a shill for the unions.

Reader beware: whenever Thom Higgins says something like... "just for fun"... I've learned to get a good grip on my wallet. Don't say you haven't been warned.

Once again Thom Higgins is playing fast, loose, and free with the numbers telling half truths and only painting the picture the way he would like others to see it. Or maybe Thom just didn't do too well in HS math.

What is truthful is IF the assessed value of all of our property values had remained FLAT for this entire time period of comparison then Thom Higgins numbers might be fairly close to being correct... assuming Thom is using the correct tax rate for each year and assuming Thom hasn't made a boneheaded math mistake again. I haven't had time to verify that aspect yet.

What is also truthful is to remind Thom that the assessed value of our property for most of us steadily increased in most if not all of these tax years. Each property would need to be reviewed separately to determine which tax year property values were reassessed and the difference in assessed value between each tax year.

However, the important distinction is that the percentages Thom was so quick to quote are on top of whatever new value your property was assessed each year. So even in tax year 2010 where Thom tries to illustrate a low value of 1.61% the true "out of pocket" increase to SD 203 from 2009 to 2010 was considerably higher.

The correct, truthful, and honest (sorry Thom) way to determine the average percentage increase for a property, that has not otherwise undergone improvements during the 2009 - 2013 time period, would be to look at how much was actually paid in 2009, how much will be paid in 2012, determine the total percent change, and then divide by the number of tax years. That represents real money that came from some ones pocket, not pretend numbers that exist only on paper and tell only the "fun" part of the story.

Warren Dixon would like to speak to anyone who's SD203 portion of property taxes only went up 2.56% on average during this entire time period...

And Thom you should be ashamed to keep posting garbage like this.

Please remember that there is talk of Districts picking up the 8.5% employer contribution for teachers pensions.

I must respectfully say that if this happens, it will have to come attached to a teacher paycut or freeze. This cannot occur in isolation of the contract.

Also if this happens, the only contribution for districts should be that which the state must pay for normal contributions NOT for the catch up. As such it should be smaller than 8.5%. Yes..I get it that either way the taxpayers of D203 and D204, by virtue of higher incomes, must end up footing the bill anyway.

I have not checked the latest qe203 stuff. Has Mr. Higgins changed the Q&A yet on his beloved salary analysis?

What did Dave Zager say about my salary analysis, Mr. Higgins? You can answer here or I can just request more email exchanges. Your choice.

And to anonymous march 1, 20101 3:00PM. I mentioned the same thing wayyy up there somewhere about the excess funds.

Mr. Higgins wrote:

The fact that it(D203) has over 20 some years spent at the state average is compelling to me, and most others as well I suspect.

How can a district change its spending patterns? Please list several mature districts that changed their spending pattern over the past 10 years....

-1

with this new surplus the pressure will be on to use it for increasing teachers salaries. You watch, the next contract negotiation will be all about using the surplus to give out huge salary increases again. How about using that surplus to reduce bogus fee increases!!

Just for fun a quick recap on D203 Property Tax increases:

2007 3.4% total 3.4%
2008 2.5% total 2.5%
2009 4.1% + 0.0% DSL (DSL ABATED) total 4.1%
2010 .01% + 1.6% DSL total 1.61%
2011 2.7% + 0.0% DSL (DSL ABATED) total 2.7%

PROJECTED- based on 1-31-2011 assumptions

2012 1.5% + 0.0% DSL (DSL ABATED) total 1.5%
2013 2.9% = 0.0% DSL (DSL ABATED) total 2.9%

If the projected CPI increases for 12-13 are correct, the State funding continues, and we have no surprises, we are looking at an average increase of 2.67% annually from 07-13. If we look at the years 09-13 when the facilities referendum bond repayment is due, the gross increase is 2.56% (including the DSL). As the voters approved an additional 1.6% to fund the referendum, the net difference is under 1% (.96%). You can look at it from various angles, but every year D203 abates the DSL it forgoes collecting $3 Million that it's legally entitled to collect.

I know this will get a few comments about over collecting/overtaxation but I have a hard time taking any of it seriously when you consider how little D203 spends compared to its peers. The fact that it has over 20 some years spent at the state average is compelling to me, and most others as well I suspect. For those who have not seen it, take a look at what the top CUSD's and SH Districts spend compared to D203 in What is the Best Educational Value in Chicagoland?

Thom Higgins

QE203.org

First, here’s the projections from the 2-22-11 SB meeting that are getting some people excited.

The District does a lot of projections, modeling differing assumptions. It is dangerous in the extreme to latch onto any one of them as “gospel”.

If you look at the November projection you will see that it shows the District going negative in 2015-2016, with the operating fund balance falling below 10% in the year 2018-2019. This projection assumes, for levy purposes, a 1.0% CPI for 2012-2013 and 1.5% CPI for 2013-2014. Further, it assumes in 2011-2012 that General State Aid is zeroed out, with a 10% Mandated Categorical and 50% Non-Mandated Categorical cuts.

Since that projection was prepared two significant events occurred. First was the increase in the State income tax and, second, the CPI for 2010 came in at 1.5%.

A new projection dated 1-31-11 has the 1.5% CPI plugged in for 2012-2013 and an assumed 1.9% projection for 2013-2014 (I’m interested in where this number comes from). Further it has General State Aid at 100% through 2014-2015. This pushed out the year the projection shows the district going negative to 2017-2018, although the amount for this school year is de minimis.

What is important to look at are the three fund balances for this Projection. The top is without any abatement of the DSL (Debt Service Levy) and the bottom is abating the DSL though the 2018 levy.

So, if everything in the projection turns out to actually happen, the District could end up with some very healthy fund balances. However, this does not mean that this is the course the District is planning on taking, nor is there any guarantee that the assumptions will play out as indicated. Even with the 2% income tax increase the State has more bills than funds to pay them. It is foolhardy to assume that the State will keep funding at 100% even for the four years. Please remember that there is talk of Districts picking up the 8.5% employer contribution for teachers pensions. That’s not in here. And finally, the projection assumes a 2.5% CPI, which may or may not happen (this is the projected annual increase in our property taxes) and 4.0% rate of interest on investment income (this is a big increase from essentially zero these days) going forward.

Projections are “what if’s” they are not budgets. Indeed, the SB in 2007 was looking at projections that projected deficits in the current school year. Even with a flat operating levy one year, that has been pushed out to, certainly, 2015-2016. Part of the way this was accomplished was with $10 million in cuts/savings.
The decision by the SB was to abate this years DSL of $3M (1.6%), and await what the future brings with the thought that the District could reasonably abate the DSL though the 2018 levy if reality plays out close to what is assumed in the projection. Could it potentially do more? Sure, but they need to see what the future brings. Do I think we will see $65-75 million fund balances? No, and that doesn't mean they will spend it either.

Thom Higgins

QE203.org

An add on to Greeneyeshade.

What has been the main factor in inflation over the last four years? Housing prices? NO! Big Ben (a major factor).

The main cause--GASOLINE PRICES. So should teachers alone get salary increases (the rest of society is not) and our property taxes go up for the same reason.

To honor a fellow blogger. JUST ASKING!!

Please be more honest in dealing with us simple ‘ol readers, okay?

First, the abatement explanation, above, fails to highlight that the abatement for debt is a one-time refund. We get it this year, then out taxes immediately go back up for next year.

The fact is that our intrepid Board decided, as they tend to, to go ahead and increase us to the freaking max on the true, real levy.

Now. listen closely, chillens ------- this max increase goes forward and WILL BE COLLECTED FROM US EVERY YEAR (PLUS YEARLY CPI INCREASES ON THE IT!) GOING FORWARD INTO PERPETUITY!

Given the absolutely lousy economic environment, the loss of jobs, the State tax increases (which, ironically are basically another school/teacher tax on us!), it seems pretty insensitive at best that our doofus board has decided to tax us to the maximum allowed despite their building of surpluses that go way beyond their own policy.

Why are they doing it? Because they can, and because people like the qe203 crowd, trying to disguise themselves as a simple grassroots citizen group, act as the 203 attack dog to defend the un-defendable!

Higgins ---- please cease and desist form misleading the readers any further on your "turnover" issue!!!!!!!

Simple econ fact: The average raises given to individual teachers should NOT be offset by the benefits of turnover ---- that is flawed analysis and does constitute a lie,

The turnover benefit can and should be used in looking at how well the Super manages total spending, but has NOTHING to do with measuring individual raises.

The onloy things that belong in an analyisis of individuals is the TOTAL WAGES EARNED per EMPLOYEE. THis would indlude everyhting, from base to steps to lanes, etc.

I looked at their forecasts ----- in Nov, they had a projected surplus of $72 million.

The most current one I saw (last Monday?) has some changes: an abatement of 2.4 million, plus additional State funding they had taken out of the prior forecasts of about 6.5 mil.

Given this, the new surplus fcst s/b about $76.1 mil, but they are showing $61 mil

That is a $15.1 mil change. What else changes since Nov we don’t know about? I have been told repeatedly by the District that they will not share the modeling assumptions for forecast salary increases as they believe it could compromise them in negotiations.

Thus, until further notice, I have to assume the missing +15 mil is being reforecast as addtional raises from the Nov forecast.

On the Salary Debate

Teacher salary increases. Thom, we appreciate your dialogue. But the only public piece of information shows the 0.04, 2.58%, 2.88% increases (the NUEA Contract). We do not have any official word on the lane increases or turnover. If the net effect of these items are -1.54%, 0.5%, 0.5%. Great. Candidly, the financial projections need to be more transparent.

Moving Projections. Since November, the projected surplus has increased by $22 million!!!! ZOWIE!! What happened? The original budget assumed NO state funding?

State Income Tax and Teacher Pensions. This is the other shoe to drop. The State simply gave benefits they could not afford (quote Chris Christie). Is this a financial meltdown or the inevitable collapse of a "Illinois/Quinn/Blago/Ryan/Edgar/Madoff" Ponzi scheme? Should the taxpayers shoulder 100% of this cost? Or should the employees accept four years of total freezes (assuming this is enough time) to correct the situation? A major portion of the state income tax increase is the result of the Pension Ponzi scheme as would be local districts paying for pensions (they are also complicit as well as Quinn/Blago/Ryan/Edgar).

Nevertheless, the District has $18 million more than the targeted fund balance. In response to Jaensch's claim we need to look out five years, we can. This excess grows to either $40 million or $55 million depending on the debt service levy.
And there are no more capital projects, the previous plan is now complete.

Question. Why not establish a policy to give the taxpayers the benefits of this excess. Particularly after $130 million of over taxation since 2002.

PONZI SCHEME, IRRESPONSIBLE. This is good stewardship?

Mr. Higgins,

The 2nd year of the contract is what has been needed all along. Everyone should get at least a CPI raise (although I am unclear of top of lanes) and net costs should be close to CPI. Fair to teachers. Fair to taxpayers. I am confident Dan D would agree.

The last year fails because they assumed CPI would be higher, so that we are stuck with a BASE close to CPI.

If Dave Z ran the scattergram and found out that Base+Step next year is 2.6% or whatever, then the STEP is much smaller than before with a base of 1.35%. Which steps have been removed?

I am unclear how we have a salary freeze and have Base+Step = .04% as you claim. Maybe if he includes the 6% retirees. Even then, with a mere 1% of the staff in the 6% retiree zone, it would be .06%. Maybe I'm missing something.

Anyway, wouldn't these charts make more sense with actuals instead of Base+Step for prior years?

Regarding TRS. I posted at length about this in another thread. Without recently created smoothing shenanigans (carrying 1/5 of losses/gains posted for each year and sharing 1/5 with each of the next 4 years), TRS is actuarially below water even if the state pulled $23B out of its rear right now.

By the way, I'd prefer my Monkey Mask over a Phantom mask.

-1 aka Banksy

Responding to this from -1:

Because of the salary freeze and the known retirements the net will be negative this year.

Then why does the district document list +.04%? Isn't it late enough in the school year to KNOW.

The next two years will show gains, again with the average increase projected to be .5% annually over the full three years.

IS that why the numbers listed for next year and the year after are 2.58% and 2.88%? Or am I misreading the district document posted above?

My response:

You answer your own question in your latest post. The +04% is the Base and Step. That’s all. You seem to know that. So for that matter is the 2.58% and the 2.88%. You also seem to know that to get a complete picture of what percentage wages are increasing you have to add in Lanes and turnover.

So let’s use the +.04% that represents Base and Step for 2010-2011. My memory is that the Lane increase is like 1% and the turnover is like -2.75% for a net decrease in average salary of 1.75%. This from memory. I’m not going to go back to my notes. I’m close. Same goes for the next two years. You have to add in for the Lane movement and subtract for the turnover. The end result is an average increase of.5% to the taxpayer is over the three years of the current contract. Those that attend SB meetings would have heard this already. I distinctly remember the net .5% number and have it in my notes.

Seriously, you should get don you Phantom mask and show up to the meetings, might learn something. The workshop meeting is not televised. You have to be there. You also have the opportunity to talk to various staff and SB members which I regularly do.

My global complaint is your claim that the contracts aren’t sustainable, when, in fact, after all of the variables are taken into account, a .5% increase is quite sustainable. Everyone please remember, this is the actual increase we pay.

Why do they only list the Base and Step increases? I don't know, but it does lead to this kind of confusion.

As to the pension question: There is serious talk of having the Districts make what I will call the base or normal employer (sorry) contribution of 8.5% instead of the State. The State would still remain on the hook for all their non-payments and I’m assuming some/all of the actuarial shortfalls. Last I looked at the TRS underfunding, 50% of the problem was the state not making its required payments but that was before the financial meltdown.

Thom Higgins

QE203.org

Probably my final comment on the crap Mr. Higgins has been throwing around about Average Raise unless he decides to keep tossing.

Refer to page 13.

Dave Zagar's ESTIMATES (for increase in D203 costs for incumbents NOT Average Raise which is larger) for 2000-2006 average out to 6.65%. ESTIMATES.

6.65%

6.65%

Did Mr. Higgins use THAT to calculate the 30 (?35) year estimate?

Nope. He used 5.57%.

The TT in 2007 came up with a number of 7.2% based on ACTUALS. Dave Zager says "7.1 % would not be out of the question". My calculated number for 2000-2006 using ACTUALS is 7.0% (corresponding with Dave Z's methodology of year-over-year total incumbent salary).

Mr. Higgins now tries revisionist history using 2007-2010 numbers to claim that the TT and Dan D and everyone who was concerned about 7% raises BEFORE the 2007 election were wrong.

Furthermore, the number Dave Z calculates is NOT NOT NOT Average percent raise. So the number Mr. Higgins uses to calculate the career is the wrong one anyway.

Mr. Higgins. Please do your calculations with 7% or even 6.65% and see what happens. Zowie was correct then and it is now.

Please apologize to Dan D and the TT for being WRONG about teacher salaries.

Please apologize to ME for the (stuff) about the Q&A.

Please apologize to everyone who has had to read your ramblings.

-1
.
.
.
.
.
technical note: When I ran the older salary schedules (pre-2005), I thought that there was NOT a direct relationship between old and new schedules. Dave Z says yes, so I will believe it for now, but I'd like to see them again. I cannot find my notes from 2 years ago. In other words,my memory was that you could not factor out the base increase over the each of the last, say, 7 years to get the 7 year-old schedule like you can do for the past few years.

A few comments for tonight:

I’m pleased to see that -1 posted the results of his anonymous FOIA. I haven’t downloaded it yet, but I’ll assume it is the complete 118 page document. If not, I will post the complete document with a link.

For -1, or anyone else who would like to weigh in on the contents of the FOIA as it relates to the finished product here: Overview of Teacher Salary Increases for Fiscal Years 2007-2010 please do so in, say, the next two weeks. I will then respond to them all one time.

Concerning -1’s reply to Greenshade: specifically his listing of NUEA increase costs coupled with CPI percentages and the comment that these increases are not sustainable:

Considering -1’s vehement and unrelenting criticism of yours truly here in the blog I could fairly respond with a few hundred words about -1’s lack of understanding of D203 salary structure and how shocking this is after all he’s written recently, with such implied expertise, that he is so completely clueless. Instead, I just explain what the numbers represent and why his analysis is wrong.

In D203’s projections you will indeed find the percentages -1 listed. What they represent is the base and step increase. That is all. It does not give you a complete picture of teacher salaries or costs. For example if you look at the 10-11 through 12-13 increases, you have to add in for lanes increases and then you have to deduct for turnover in order to get the actual increase in costs. Anyone can look at previous posts above where I have discussed this. The net effect is that if you average the three years listed, the projected increase in average salary as a percentage is .5% annually that’s ½ of 1%. So is that sustainable? I think so.

So everyone understands, the average salary for a D203 teacher (certified staff really) for 2010-2011 will decrease from last years number. The next two years will show gains, again with the average increase projected to be .5% annually over the full three years.

There are some variables. The higher turnover the lower any net increase will be. If we have a ton of retirements it could go negative for the full three years. If we have less than average it could go higher. Because of the salary freeze and the known retirements the net will be negative this year.

Another new factor is the change in the salary schedule; some steps were dropped, there is now a limit on how far across the lanes you can go in one year and there is an increased scrutiny in the courses approved to allow lane changes. All this is adding up to slowing wage growth which lowers the annual increases in average wage.

Lastly, I’ll comment on the D203 budget as it relates to deficits and fund balances. I find it humorous (ironic?) that for years there has been this drumbeat that the district is going into deficit and there’s an operating referendum coming. Indeed a SB member was recently warning me of just this “fact,” D203 will be in an operating deficit in three years. But that was a month ago, ancient history, now suddenly it’s” we’ve got too much money let’s abate it all!”

The problems here are twofold, just as -1 didn’t understand the context behind the percentages he reproduced, most people looking at a projection and not understanding the underlying assumptions are in very dangerous waters. Compounding the issue is that the District does a lot of them based on different scenarios, leading to wildly differing conclusions if you don’t understand the context. Recently the District showed a projection that has significant fund balances. However, that projection is predicated on two things that I know of (could be more). First, that the State continues to fund D203 at its previous levels, and secondly, the District does not have to pick up any of the teacher’s pension costs. Both of these are not given’s by a long shot. Contra the comment here in this blog that the State income tax increase is solely to teacher pensions, Illinois has significant budgetary challenges in paying all its bills as well as funding pensions. There is serious talk of districts picking up the normal employee contribution of the pension (8.5%). It could very well happen. And, of course, the state could well reduce its finding as it searches for ways to pay all of its bills.

203 has received assurances that State funding is intact for this fiscal year, although payments will be very late. Consequently, the decision made for 2011 property taxes was to abate the Debt Service Levy of $3M but raise the Operating Levy 2.7% per CPI. The result is (in aggregate) taxes paid to D203 will go up 1.1% over last year. If the state continues to fund fully and not shift pension contributions onto the District then they will be in the position to, at the least, continue to abate the DSL. My understanding is they are loathe to abate more than that until there is some clarity of what the future will bring. Please note: There could well be more that I am unaware of. This is my best understanding as of today.

Thom Higgins

QE203.org

If I read the most current set of projections correctly, the school baord is planning on givng an additional +$16 million in raises to the teachers for the 4 year period ended 2017 that they were NOT planning on as of this past November.

How can they get away with this?????

Sorry. Had to change the link.

This should work better.

http://www.mediafire.com/file/za1192fzx3c13fc/FOIA_Document.pdf

and my salary analysis:

http://www.mediafire.com/file/2c8n3tt5858a45q/D203_1999_TO_2009_RAISE_ANALYSIS_AND_ANATOMY_OF_A_RAISE_OFFICE07_10.xlsx

-1

Quoth Dave Zager regarding the chart posted by CUE-E

The document that was reproduced in the email FOIA was not produced by the District nor is it a record of the District.

which means.....This document being posted by Thom Higgins and qe203.org was not sent to Dave Zager.

Several other drafts showed up and as such are records of the district.

Higgins has truth creep.

-1

Has anyone on this thread taken a close look at the 203 projections (past and present) to see if they make any sense?

It appears to me that they are consistently wrong by tens of millions!!!!!

Also, and I could be off on this, but it does appear that the most current projections indicate that they are planning on giving raises WELL OVER CPI for the four years ending 2017.

Anyone?

I think the Sun should do a full blown investigation of the new overtaxation by District 203. The puppet financial advisory board recommended that the District have a $20 million reserve fund. After spending $35 million on construction, this level is exceeded by almost $18 million.

$18 MILLION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If I compare Dave Zager 2008 projection of the 2012 surplus to his most recent schedule, it looks like he missed by $35 million.

What is going on? Where is QE203?

The typcial District 203 taxpayer will pay about $2,000 more in income taxes this year to shore up teacher pensions. And District 203 still wants to collect more when they have exceeded their own targetted balance?

Then Jaensch says the District has to be concerned about five to ten years from now. Ok, in five years this excess triples (assuming that the District is not off by another $35 million).

With the higher income taxes to support teacher fringe benefits, there should be a corresponding four year freeze on salaries!!

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

-1,

I eagerly await what I fully suspect will be an alternative view of the actions that went into creating the document, as well as, what the document represents.

Are you planning on making any comments on what Mr. Denys has claimed here vs. what the emails tell you? Just curious.

This should be great fun. Pull up a seat everyone and grab some popcorn, the show is about to begin.

Thom Higgins

QE203.org

Mr. Higgins wrote:

For the record: The descriptions for line 1-2-3, as well as the answers on the Q&A are the work of Dave Zager. The questions are mine. He and I worked together on the narrative that explains what lines 1-2-3 mean. Mr. Zager supplied the ECI and ISBE data. There is no editorializing whatsoever by your truly.

He followed up with Oops thinking he "got" me.

Oops indeed.

Care to come clean before said material is posted?

-1

Caught?

In the spirit of fairness are you going to post your FOIA results in their entirety?

Thom Higgins

QE203.org

I think the teachers union have kidnapped Thom and told him to be quiet for the rest of the election cycle. I hope they are treating him well.

True to form, he puts out all of these bombastic comments and then disappears. Just like he did two years ago on the salary issue.

Shows his true colors. A total shill for the union, nothing more.

(school report cards...Higgins caught)

Mr. Higgins,

I am asking you to correct information regarding the truthfulness of your Q&A.

Please come clean.

I will be posting the PDF file soon for everyone to peruse.

I am offering you the chance to come clean. Write out the truth as people will soon be seeing it.

Your choice.

You ripped me for asking about the truthfulness of the Q&A. The truth is upon us. Apologize and come clean.

-1

Anonymous wrote:

All ancillary and support positions should be immediately outsourced. None of these positions are mission critical to delivering education and every single one of these positions can be delivered more cost effectively and more productively by private industry.

A lot of these positions in D203, such as office support staff, are already pretty low paying. I doubt private industry could do much better.

Uh, you CAN stomp out of a meeting and go to the corridor (which she did) and still talk to people after and do an interview. '

Was that REALLY a question by you?

Typical Thom to suggest merging something like Lisle with SD 203.

What should be happening instead is merging 203 and 204. Now that would make way too much sense and save all kinds of money... and especially by cutting the combined administrative expense in half between the two school districts by eliminating all of the resulting duplicity. Plus there would be better economy of scale for purchasing price because we would be buying twice as much as before.

Even so there are still limits to how much cost savings can be had while the government and teachers unions continue to control much of what goes on in public schools. As I've posted before the state constitution says the state is responsible for financing public eduction... it doesn't say the state is responsible for delivering public education. The entire public education system should be privatized and each school should be reimbursed by the state for a fixed amount per student. Let the marketplace determine competitive wages, benefits, etc. along with teacher performance driving where parents and students choose to attend.

All ancillary and support positions should be immediately outsourced. None of these positions are mission critical to delivering education and every single one of these positions can be delivered more cost effectively and more productively by private industry. The sooner we get these hundreds and hundreds of ancillary and support positions off the public school payroll the sooner we will start to limit and reduce our long term pension liabilities as well.

Dan D has to be wrong. Thom Higgins said that Lisle taxes were 60% more. Why wouldn't those people want a 60% decrease.

Tell us the truth Thom. Tell Dan D he is totally wrong. The people in Lisle should want to cut their taxes almost in half.

Thom:

It appears administrator resistance to consolidating is just one piece of a very complicated puzzle. These things always look easier from the outside. Thanks for the perspective.

Sorry Thom, the people in Lisle would not want to join District 203. Their taxes would increase 5%, they have rennovated their school facilities and they have substantially smaller class sizes (hence higher spending per student).

Why would they want to join 203?

A better plan would be to implement a program like in Belgium where all schools become private and compete for students. That would drive down costs, improve quality and make schools subject to the market system. Last I saw, Belgium students were outperforming us substantially.

You don't have to worry about firing incompentant teachers. Nobody would go to their schools and they automatially lose their job.

I do not see where the right to a free education also mandated a socialistic system.

Now that would be CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN!!

Sorry to have to do this, but I am going to call out Dave Zager right here and right now. I hope I am wrong about this. Truly. He seems like a bright and capable guy.

From the 2010 Debt Service Levy Abatement

First, CPI-U (inflation) that limits our tax levy for 2011 is 1.5% when it was projected to be 1%.

And from the Sun article about the contract:

In year three (2012-13), the base will be 75 percent of the 2010 CPI (with a floor of 1.4 percent and a ceiling of 2.7 percent, equating to a CPI range between 1.9 percent and 3.6 percent)

Screeechhhh.... 2010 CPI-U was 1.5% which will be applied to the 2011 tax levy (next year).

When exactly was the CPI predicted to be 1%? Certainly not during Contract negotiations unless somewhat flat out lied about the terms.

It appears that in the agreement of the contract (still not available(?) but done last spring) CPI was projected to be between 1.9% to 3.6%. N'est-ce pas?

I hope beyond hope that I am missing something BASIC. I kind of doubt it, though.
.
.
.
.
Someone has to come out and say it -- extra funds from the ongoing 2002 referendum over-collection are allowing both the abatement of the DSL and non-issuance of bonds for the Cantera-TIF AR.

Moderators: I will call out ANY incumbent BY NAME who tries to claim that they are responsible for raising tax bills only 1.1% when CPI was 2.7% as something great when they allowed a tax hike last year when the CPI to apply was only 0.1%. As I wrote was above, the general taxes have always gone up by CPI. Then the DSL can be abated or not. This will cause taxes to appear to go up by > CPI in years when the DSL was abated the year prior, but not the present year. It will cause taxes to go up by less than CPI even without ANY abatement since the DSL is fixed and does not increase by CPI. Taxes will show a smaller than CPI increase when the DSL is abated one year and was not abated the year prior (like would happen if the abatement is approved on Monday).

-1

Why stop at consolidating school districts?

Look at the money that could be saved if townships duties were simply handed off to cities and towns?

Look at the economies of scale if cities like Naperville and Aurora or Naperville and Plainfield, etc. merged.

Same thing with park districts, library districts, fire protection districts, etc.

A good way to start with all of this is to take the same approach the government uses when a bank fails... the bank gets taken over by a bigger, stronger bank. Many local government units are in serious financial trouble and the politicians keep kicking the due bill down the road. One solution is to force local jurisdictions into bankruptcy court and then force the takeover or merger with a stronger neighbor.

If local units of government want to remain autonomous... civic pride, etc... then they need to be managed and run properly or run the risk of losing their identity and independence.

What the:

Yes, I think your right, it's hard to get people to sign up to eliminate their job, but there's other issues as well, including people liking local control(this a real problem downstate in rural areas). There is often significant socio-economic differences (which means significant funding differences as well ) between various elementary districts that feed into the same HS district. How do you resolve that?

In Consolidated Unit Districts all teachers are paid the same (as is typical nationally). Here in Illinois we have elementary teachers in stand alone districts making less than teachers in Unit districts, with the opposite being true for the HS teachers. That would have to be resolved.

Then there's the question of the various debt service levy's for the individual districts, that would have to be sorted out. I would assume they would have to continue to bill those to the respective taxpayers currently paying them, but the first few facilities referendum's would be interesting as you would have to change people's mindset and convince them to increase their taxes for schools they previously didn't consider their own.

Consolidating bus services is one way Unit districts lower costs but then come compromises such as staggered starts to the school day. That's a problem. Saves money but has other "costs".

Illinois tried this in the 80's as a voluntary initiative. A number of districts did consolidate then but there was a lot of pushback. I believe this would be mandatory.

I'll tell you of one slam dunk right here in Lisle/Naperville. Lisle 202 with 1500 some students should merge with D203. Lisle spends as much as New Trier's combined school districts which is say 40% more than D203 spends. D203 has better educational outcomes as well.

Quinn's got a tough road with this, but I wish him luck.

Thom Higgins

QE203.org

-1:

Agreed. Despite the recession, not during.

Thom Higgins:

We noticed there was a lot of duplication in having so many individual school districts, some quite small, when we first moved here and knew that consolidating would cut down on this, thereby saving a lot of money. But this kind of restructuring would also cut a lot of administrative jobs. Wouldn't the administrators of these districts resist consolidating? Isn't this why it hasn't happened before now?

not getting into it with you...but you said We've still seen growth, despite the recession.. I may have misread this as during the recession. If you meant in the last 10 years we've seen growth, despite the last three years of recession, then fine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle#Demographics

fwiw, Seattle apparently had an 11.9% growth from 2000-2010.

-1 disengaging from this part of the thread

Interesting article in the Herald about a Quinn proposal to consolidate school districts. Even though it's never popular it would save real money, and assuming they are talking about consolidating together the elementary schools that feed into high schools, having K-12 administered by one entity would help ensure that the curriculum is aligned properly for all. I hope this happens.

For Who The:

Please explain how Ms. Price was could possibly "stomp out" of the meeting and yet when she was supposed to be stomping she was actually having a very friendly exchange with Ms. Strearns, and after that was interviewed on camera by NCTV17?

Thom Higgins

QE203.org

Thanks for backing me up WHO THE!! Yes we did all see it. Price and McGuirre were not happy campers. Those two are so far out to lunch it's not even funny. They just DO NOT GET IT.

Was Price hanging out with yet another DEMOCRAT, Diane McGuire?

Why does Susyn deny her party affiliation? Two faced? Deceptive?

Republicans should not allow her to have it both ways. Imagine how much more our taxes would go up if the Democrats could have elected Diane McGuire?

But NTRO, do not let the ENEMIES into the camp. Suzyn should turn down the NTRO meeting because SHE IS NOT A REPUBLICAN!!

I hope somebody who belongs to NTRO calls her out. Ask about her financial support of Barak Obaman and John Kerry!! Her policies are just as dangerous to Naperville (our taxes have gone up 80% under her watch) as Obamas are to our country.

No wonder she stomped out with Diane McGuire.

Responding toThom Higgins | February 15, 2011 11:50 PM |:

Uh, kiddies ------- you did not puncture anything! "Change" was off in his/her numbers (and this easily could be due to him/her not understanding the nature or composition of the group), but the FACT is that in his/her intent they were absolutley correct: The group overwhelmingly to support teh movement AND the two mentioned absolutely DID stomp out!

Simply put, we all saw it!

To Rachel Ossyra:

I sincerely hope that you will ALSO invite all the other (4?) candidates to come back to the March 26th meeting to address your group along with Jaensch and Price!

If not, it would represent unfair treatment to the remaining candidates who actually make the effort to make your Feb 26th meeting as the remaining two would be meeting with your group A) much closer to the ekection date and B) they will have had the advantage of hearing what the other 4 said and be able to respond without debate.

---Dude

-1,

On the subject of teacher ratings ---- you should get some info on the gross ratings of teachers in 203.

The past Super, and principals, did not do their jobs and as a result an unbelievable skewing of ratings occurred. If only the number was a s low as 75%!

IF there was to be a change where tewachers could be fired and could get bonuses, etc., there would also have to be strict guidelines given. An example would be the GE model (no skewing, but the bar keeps raising so that you do basically have a bell-curve like effect).

WT?,

Go to Zillow.com and you will get access to all the dismal info ion Naperville housing prices that you want!

Here's a nice article from the new York Times which discusses what happens in practice in biology classrooms across the nation.

Researchers found that only 28 percent of biology teachers consistently follow the recommendations of the National Research Council to describe straightforwardly the evidence for evolution and explain the ways in which it is a unifying theme in all of biology. At the other extreme, 13 percent explicitly advocate creationism, and spend at least an hour of class time presenting it in a positive light.

That leaves what the authors call “the cautious 60 percent,” who avoid controversy by endorsing neither evolution nor its unscientific alternatives. In various ways, they compromise.

Personally, I feel there is no problem accepting evolution and creationism -- depending on how it is defined. Students will ask --but where did the first primordial goo come from? Where did the material from the big bang come from? And what is the proof? By not allowing actually scientific questioning into the classroom and addressing theories, then how can learning occur? Lack of scientific proof of a commonly-held theory (scientific or religious) is important to know in the science classroom.

Adam and Eve creationism --not compatible with evolution.

Otherwise, conflict need not exist between the two. There is sufficient acceptable scientific proof for some concepts and inadequate proof for others.

What is the qe203 question supposed to be asking? This question was called into question last election cycle, yet there it is again.

-1 (agnostic)

Rachel Ossyra isn't too highly thought of. Dan Cronin was going to appoint her to the State Senate until a revolt nearly broke out in NTRO.

"According to the Census Bureau, Naperville grew from 128,358 to 141,853 residents between 2000 and 2010, a growth rate of 10.5 percent. However, the last figure is a dip from the 144,560 residents counted as of a 2008 special census in the city."

So there's your decline: Naperville pop in 2000: 128,258; pop in 2008: 144,560, pop in 2010 141,853. The difference between 2008 and 2010 can probably be chalked up to foreclosures and people relocating elsewhere for employment. Yet Naperville still shows aggregate growth of 10.5% over the past decade.

The Seattle article says "Seattle is down about 31 percent from its mid-2007 peak and, according to Zillow’s calculations, still has as much as 10 percent to fall. Mr. Humphries estimates the rest of the country will drop a further 5 and 7 percent . . ."

So even tho Naperville has it's share of foreclosures and empty houses, we're not as bad off as the Seattle area. Like I said before, some areas retain their value better than others. Naperville still has more than enough dupes willing to buy houses here. Why do you think that is? Great area, great public schools maybe?

Comment to NTRO

Why would you invite LEFT WING DEMOCRATS to speak to a Republican organization? That is absolutely ridiculous. Republicans should unite either behind a solid Republican or a true independent, not a supporter of Barak Obama and John Kerry and a union organizer so radical that his union members voted him out of leadership. And Fielden's actions are left wing as well.

This total lack of Republican leadership in Illinois (you don't find this in New Jersey or Florida) is why we have Pat Quinn who is destroying our state. Today he wants to increase taxes even more, class warfare.

And to the poster about Naperville, nobody is focusing on the DECLINE in the last two year in population. This is the result of foreclosures and empty houses.

It is time to get out before matters get worst. I hope there are enought dupes that will buy our houses that have already lost 40% of the value and continue to drop like a brick.

I saw Price and Mcguire stomp out of the Chamber legislative meeting, it was awesome!

Some comments on the recent Sun editorial on D203 fees.

Assuming that it is acceptable to charge students user fees, and assuming that the amount of fees borne by the general taxpayer is acceptable (estimated total...$4.8M paid by taxpayers out of $7.6M), should there be a change in distribution of that money?

My opinion is that OPTIONAL fees should not be subsidized at all until MANDATORY (general) fees are fully paid for.

What system makes sense where an individual athlete on a selective participation team gets subsidized to the tune of $800, yet a struggling family pays $75 per kid in general fees?

Note that I am NOT suggesting that the district pay for ALL general fees AND keep the optional participation subsidy fully intact. What I am suggesting is if D203 feels it is necessary to continue to subsidize such fees and costs at the present level, pay for everyone before paying for the select few. Otherwise, a grade class is indirectly paying for a single basketball player. As of now, it appears that the bulk of the OPTIONAL fees are due to sponsor costs, so that the grade school class is partially paying for the coach. While optional activities are certainly great and help make up the character of an education, why should my retired neighbor and parents of a grade-schooler help pay for those OPTIONAL costs?

Note to SUN: The taxpayers are paying CPI increase no matter how the district uses the money. It can remain "free and compulsory" with my above proposal (which has some very objectionable assumptions like accepting the total AMOUNT of taxpayer subsidy as fair.)

Before anyone points out gate receipts for the athletic teams are absorbed by the athletic department, make sure that ALL costs of running said teams are accounted for and the gate receipts are divvied fairly to the peripheral groups (band, cheerleaders, pom squad(sorry sis, I forgot to list poms before. don't hate me), flag, etc..) which draw in paying fans. The receipts are kept in the department, not sent back to the general education fund which pays for the coach costs.

-1

Some very brief comments tonight.

Just as "Change in the Air" made up the Chamber luncheon story that I was happy to puncture, we can thank the NTRO for setting the record straight on another fiction being pedaled here.

My comment to you all posting here: if this election cycle is anything like last year there will be countless fabricated stories such as these. I will take from this that you feel that your opposing candidates are unable to win on their own merits. I think you should have more faith in them and abstain from such behavior.

I'll respond to some of -1's and Mr. Denys comments as I have time but one fast easy answer for -1. I can no longer count the times you have asked your question. The answer remains the same. If you don't like it, then may I suggest you contact Mr. Zager directly.

Thom Higgins

QE203.org

I believe they are referring to the movement by the State to drastically change tenure (no, not "illegal", but somewhat antiquated as it would allow the firing of teachers) and would mov "teacher strikes" out of the realm of threats, coercion, and bullying and back into the realm of running a business.

See quick link:

http://illinoisissuesblog.blogspot.com/2010/12/house-considers-limits-on-teacher.html

That is the problem --- especially when you are doing it from a little phone screen!

I am thinking like outlook email where you click on "rec'd" and the order changes.

Sun editors,

A technically naive ? 4 u:

Is there a way to reverse the order of comments on as thread so the latest come first?

Why would you expect Jaensh and Price to go to a Republican forum? Don't you know, they are extreme left wing people. Price sends money to Obama and Kerry and Jaensch is so radical as a union activist (almost as bad as a community organizer) that his fellow union members voted him out.

Fielden is as liberal as these guys. Republicans in Naperville should wake up and not vote for such extreme people in these "non partisan" elections.

Worst yet, these extreme people are corrupting our children.

CHANGE WE NEED!! WE DON'T NEED THESE PEOPLES BELIEFS.

There were not 80 chamber members there; maybe 25-30, tops.

I was at the Chamber of Commerce luncheon and can personally attest that Suzyn Price apparently knows Robin Steans, Executive Director of Advance Illinois, well as they were chatting about their respective families at length when Peter and I walked up to them. Peter and I chatted briefly with Robin and she talked about needing Districts like 203 to help mentor other Districts, as we are so much farther along in the practice of evaluating teachers and curriculum. As I understand it, she comes from a family of teachers and educators; she herself was a teacher in Chicago Public School System. A very bright and articulate person, who values teachers and administrators. I laughed at one point as she was talking about the value of teachers thinking about some of you here in the blog. Her comment on teacher’s salaries? You can never pay good teachers enough money, and principals too for that matter. We talked about CPS a bit and her comment was “give me exceptional principals and we’ll get exceptional teachers if we can put the right salary and support systems in place”. She commented she spends a lot of time working in west side schools.

I’ll also mention that their initiative is not about getting rid of tenure or outlawing strikes. For more information see Advance Illinois

This is not to say that there wasn’t some tension in the room. Both head of the 203 and 204 teachers union spoke or asked questions. The 204 head, I believe her name was Val, was unhappy with comments Robin made about the difficulty and expense of terminating a teacher and the fact that it seldom happens. Val countered that it’s their practice to council teachers out as opposed to initiating termination. This is my understanding of how 203 handles it as well. All the principals I’ve talked to talk about the working partnership with the union leadership to get rid of bad teachers. I think the tension arises as so much of what Robin is addressing does not apply to 203 or 204, something she stated at the outset but would have benefited from repeating a few times just to remind the audience of that fact.

I’ll also mention that the IEA, the IFT and the CTU have joined together to offer their own version of reform called Accountability for All

Thom Higgins

QE203.org

-1 calculated salary increases from 2000 to 2009 to be 7.3%. He posted schedules. The Taxpayer Ticket stated that it was 7.2% for 2000 to 2006.

Question. Let's assume that my consistent number was 9%. Thom was 3.54%. Who is closer to the real number? Dan off by 1.8%. Thom off by 3.66%.

And thanks Thom for your link to the post last year. 385 comments with you still try to bamboozle us.

The root problem on that post is that neither YOU nor DAVE has a number. NONE. So who knows who is right or wrong?

But here is your quote:

"Actually I have some information from Mr. Zager for the prior years, I’ll get it in some sort of comparable format to the current salary analysis and post it. "

Where is it? So I was 1.8% wrong after your extensive blabbering, but you were DOUBLE WRONG. And I put actual calculations after you raised the issue and forwarded them to you.

What have you done? NOTHING!!

And as I reviewed that post, I found the following quote from you.

"Dan created a briefer document, displaying the very same format and salary figures as mine, but without the 2010 information as he prepared his before it was available, and his does not include the Q & A and ECI information. Both the Q & A and the ECI information were provided by the Ast. Supt. Further, while this is not an official D203 document, as indicated above, this information came from the Ast. Supt. and the entire document was reviewed by him prior to publication."

Let me be clear. The document "Dan created" (in this post, he said Dave did it) was the only document that existed. It was the one that Dave created. Your document came after you DISAPPEARED for NINE MONTHS. (The 2010 information was not available since we did our work in March 2010, months before the end of the year.)

Your comment again was the best. A teacher could have a 10% increase, the average was 6%, taxpayers paid 3%. If all of these numbers were 3% less for the last ten years, teachers would still have collected salary increases in excess of CPI, ECI-W, and average employees and our taxes would be 20% lower.

At the Naperville Legislative meeting today it was awesome! They voted something like 80-1 in favor of sending a message to Springfield and District 203 to get rid of tenure and outlaw strikes. Suzyn Price and Dianne Mcguire stomped out in a huff!! It was so fun to watch!!! Wish you all could have seen it.

Of course Higgins opposes this. Higgins in nothing more than a lackey for the teachers union.

It doesn't matter though. People are fed up and want change. Change is coming whether the teachers union likes it or not. They will have a chance to get on board with the change or change will simply pass them by.

Despite well over a 150 years of trying public education in Illinois is still sub par when compared to other states and counties. Left to the hand of politics, government workers, and union members nothing is ever going to change much. All of these groups have too much vested interest in keeping things the way things are rather than improving the education system to where it should be. Power and money is more important to those who control the system than the education of our children.

We are long past the point where we should have all come to our senses and said what in the world are we doing letting the government and a bunch of bureaucrats control the education of our children? We are also long past the point where the entire public education system should have been dismantled and replaced with a privatized system of education.

Only when the public education system has been privatized will we have the kind of innovation, competition, and efficiencies that will drive educational performance to the point where Illinois children will finally be able to place highest in our nation and highest in the world.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/41574051

And Thom keeps on playing his fiddle while Naperville burns.

Just found out tonight that Jaensch and Price have both refused to attend the NTRO forum for school board candidates. Weeks, Fielden, and Fisher. So I would advise any candidates NOT to answer QE203's questionnaire. They already have their candidates picked (Jaensch, Price and Fielden) yet they will say nothing about Price and Jaensch failing to appear before NTRO.

Wonder why Price and Jaensch are too chicken to attend the NTRO forum? NTRO represents a very large constituency yet they slap them in the face. QE203 represents no one so I'd suggest any candidate ignore them too.

A minor errata:

It looks like the Sun is asking 4 questions of candidates, however the Herald is asking for them to respond to 3 key issues and 5 Questions.

Thom Higgins
QE203.org

For JQP:

I see -1 has indicated salary costs have gone up 3.62% vs. my indicated 3.54%. I will simply note that if you take the avg. salary in 1998 of $53,075 and add 3.54% annually you will arrive at $77,771 for an avg. salary in 2009, (Actual is 77,764 so high by $7).

If you use -1’s 3.62% it will return an avg. salary of $77,831 or $67 higher than actual. I will let you draw your own conclusions as to which percentage has more fiscal relevance.

Responding to Dan Denys:

I can go on for a very long time posting Mr. Denys comments that he’s claiming he never made. Here’s one more:

More interestingly, following the same methodology since 2000 (under the Weber and All-BUST regime), the increases were 9%. I had asked Dave to check those numbers, but he refused. I guess he must be as skeptical of ALL-BUST's numbers as we all are.

I simply ask the reader to click the link above and note who is making this statement.

As usual, I disagree with much of Mr. Denys comments, especially his characterizations of my actions and statements, but as usual, I lack the enthusiasm to bother to rebut it all.

As for his comments about the 2011 Candidate Questionnaire I direct readers to Question 11: ”What are your thoughts on teacher’s salaries? Do you feel that they are correctly compensated, if not, what would you change?”

This is far more direct a question on salaries than what has been offered by either the Daily Herald or the Sun. Frankly I think our questions are much more comprehensive than either of them, but then again we asked 12 questions. I think both papers asked 4.

For -1:

Your comments about Overview of Teachers Salary Increases For Fiscal Years 2007-2010 only reinforce my previous comment about not debating this with you endlessly. When Dave offers his comments and expanded Q&A we can “battle it out” some more.

Which leads me into the Anonymous post on Feb 12th @ 5:19 pm:

I will be shortly be posting a revised and expanded Overview of Teachers Salary Increases For Fiscal Years 2007-2010 It will (as the last one does) acknowledge the contribution of The Ast. Supt. of Finance for D203. If you choose to disbelieve that I truly don’t care.

Finally, for the later Anonymous post of 7:19 pm.:

It is truly childish to:
1. Claim I oppose something that I’ve never written about or made any such claim
2. That somehow this proves the Taxpayer’s Ticket was right.

Thom Higgins

QE203.org

http://keepgreatteachers.org/

Higgins opposes this too. It would appear though the tide is starting to turn against him. Once again, the Taxpayers Ticket were proven right.

Thom,

Just for clarification. There is never less credibility in true facts regardless how such facts are presented... by you, anyone else, or even by someone who chooses to remain anonymous.

I'm not sure what motivates you to attempt to discredit someone simply because they CHOOSE to exercise their right to remain anonymous, but it really does amplify your intellectual immaturity.

So far the Asst. Supt. of Finance has not posted here so he has absolutely no personal credibility whatsoever on this forum and I'm reluctant to give more than a token amount of credibility to what you allegedly repeat as hearsay and attribute as his work. You maintain Dave is confident about the accuracy of his work, but he hasn't come here to actually defend his work himself or offer any clarification as to why some of his numbers are questionable as has been previously pointed out... especially in examples where you also concurred some numbers were questionable.

Be careful which side you pick and how steadfast you are in your support and blind faith in others. If his numbers are eventually proven to have been manipulated your own credibility will be tainted forever... that is more than it is already... lol

I think the most recent posts from Thom Higgins reflects his true colors. He came on the scene with the sole purpose of demeaning the conservative view in Naperville and continues his parade.

He was twice bitten by me? As -1 might attest, he did not get his way when we compiled the list and then disappeared for nine months.

On this post, we raise numerous issues and he runs. Read his criticism about me. The only quote he has is the following:

"The comment about salary increases being as high as 8.5% to 9%."

Again, let me state for the TENTH time, this was NOT my comment. I was responding to HIS comment. If you went through the entire listing, you will not see ONE post where I said that the salary increases were 8.5% to 9%. After HUNDREDS of posts, I respond to his comment.

DISINGENUOUS!!!!

So here are the major Thom Higgins positions in conflict to the conservative view in Naperillve.

1. He supports teacher increases of at least 7%. In one of his recent posts, I believe he noted that teachers have taken less than they should. Again, he supports higher salaries.

2. He supports higher taxes. Note again he has never responded to my comment to eliminate the entire tax increase in 2011, only maybe reduce it from 2.7% to 1.1%. The District in the midst of the recession will increase taxes by almost 4%.

And where on his lists of questions does he ask any of the school board members meaningful questions. What do you think of salary increases? Why not be more specific, do you think teachers deserve 7% salary increases? How about 27% above the state average? Do you support a study to balance salaries (based on objective matters such as time worked? (two examples of the last item. Should elementary salaries be lower since they have less contact hours? Should there be a differential to account for effort to teach a class (ie a gym teacher versus a physics or English teacher)?

The QE203 Questionnaire? Nothing of consequence, just fluff. Want to guess who they (Higgens and Schulman) will support?

Thom, so you will acknowledge incumbent teacher pay raises since 1999 to say 2007 were around 7% annually?

Quick question for Mr. Higgins as I await my anonymous freedom of information request:

Do all of the below words in each of the three paragraphs actually belong to Mr. Zager? As we know the below concerns do not apply to my analysis, but I wanted to clarify where his words end and your pontification starts.
.
.
.
A. No, not as reported by the “Champion” in their teacher salary study for 1999 through 2005. A closer look at the listing for District 203 shows that, at best, only 80% of D203 teachers/principals/administrators are on the list. It also shows many receiving increases of 10%, 20%, 50%, even 200%. There are a number of reasons for this, for example, some teachers took an unpaid maternity leave in the base year, and then came back for the following full year, and the Champion.org incorrectly counted the difference in salary as an increase. Some teachers were hired at half time in their first year and became full time in the next, all were incorrectly counted as receiving large increases by the Champion.org. Some teachers, or administrators, started after the beginning of the school year and then worked the entire next academic year–and again, all incorrectly counted as an increase by the Champion.org. Other teachers became a coach or taught extra classes– all were counted as a salary increase.

In fact, given these circumstances, one would expect there to be teachers who show decreases in their pay as they worked a full year in the base year and only a part of the next year due to maternity leave or maybe were a coach in the base year and gave up the position the next. However, there were no such decreases reported by the Champion.org; they only reported increases–not decreases–in the overall payroll. Anyone with a decrease in pay was excluded from their data!

The end result of inaccurately reporting only increases without regard for time worked, extra days worked, extra jobs, or full school year versus partial school year worked, as well as not illustrating the savings due to turnover, is that in the same year the Champion.org reported an 8.3% average increase in pay for teachers while the correct and complete accounting of the Illinois State Board of Education shows that average increase in teachers salaries was 3.7% for Naperville District 203 schools.
.
.
.

As anyone with eyes can tell, the last paragraph is discussing apples and oranges. We can find a year where the Average Raise was 6.5%+ and the increase in average salary was 0%. Flawed? Nope. Just the reality of extensive retirements due to the cessation of the 20% retirement bumps.

By the way, thanks for listening about LINE2 having a wrong value. I knew you could do it.

I will try to post about FEES later today or tomorrow. A fair question to the candidates would be "D203 subsidizes fees by collecting only 50% of consumable costs such as workbooks, supplies, etc.. D203 collects only 20% of costs for OPTIONAL activities such as sports and clubs. Do you think it is fair that the taxpayer pays much more for OPTIONAL student costs than MANDATORY student costs? Or is there another way to look at this?"

(before anyone flames me, I am asking a question which might actually get a response.)

-1

Regarding Mr. Denys CHALLENGE TO THOM HIGGINS , and his recent e-mail to me, both about us working together:

As the old saying goes “one bitten, twice shy.” I have no interest in collaborating with Mr. Denys, or ghosts either for that matter. My one attempt at collaborating with Mr. Denys on the Overview of Teacher Salary Increases for Fiscal Years 2007-2010 was a dismal failure, as he continues to this day to dispute the source of the numbers and information contained therein. Thinking that I’m supposed to ignore this and work with him again, just adds to the farce.

Likewise, he continues to try to bluff his way out of his spurious claim that D203 teachers received 8.5%-9% raises from 2000 to 2006. Here is his latest from a few days ago:

”1. Thom has yet to post where I made the “spurious” claim. Again, the quotes he provided were HIS. Thom, where is the quote?”

You mean where are the quotes? Mr. Denys quotes? Here is one quote from Mr. Denys (with a link back to the original for verification). There are lots more on that same thread that I can link to as well if Dan’s feeling masochistic.

"The comment about increaes being as high as 8.5% to 9%. This was the case for the year of year salary comparisons for 2002 through 2005. I was supplied the data from others. Disprove it."

The most charitable comment I can make about Mr. Denys in this blog is that he is a serial fabricator. None of us are infallible, all of us make mistakes, but Mr. Denys has shown himself to be unconcerned about operating at even the most basic minimum standard for fairness and truthfulness. So, no, Mr. Denys, I’m not interested in collaborating with you.

Thom Higgins

QE203.org

We just sent out our 2011 Candidate Questionnaire to all six D203 SB candidates. We are requesting they be completed and returned to us by Feb25th. We will then post them, unedited and in their entirety, on the QE203.org website.

If you click on the link above you can read the 12 questions we pose.

Thom Higgins

QE203.org

Imagine my surprise watching the NewsHour tonight to see a preview of a Need To Know program that had a piece featuring Naperville Central's PE program where they are showing that students who exercise before class do better academically.

You can watch the full episode here. See more Need To Know.

Thom Higgins
QE203.org

-1, et.al.,

Some more from the peanut gallery:

I have heard the canard about "you have no idea how much planning and grading out of school we do" excuse from the district for about 30 years. Somehow this is supposed to make me feel sorry for the teachers?

Given their 9 month work year, it would take an awfully lot of planning and grading to equal a 12 month work year. Also, given that their actual day is NOT an 8 hour day, this void is even larger.

Now, my personal experiences in the "non-teaching" workworld are such that basically no one works an 8 hr day (possible exception would be some union jobs paying lucrative OT) and it is typical to also take work home for after-hours and the week-end (along with travel time to various plants, customers, vendors, etc).

THAT is why the U.S. government has rated teaching as the highest paid per-hour job in America!

Given the hours I, and those I have worked with over the years, have worked in my career I have absolutely ZERO sympathy for a group that cannot be fired, works about 9 months per year, has an untra-rich, lucrative pension plan and medical plan, and has the stress of a mushroom plant.

TH wrote "... trust me, .... If you all want to have an impact on the District, you have to engage them; show up at meetings, get to know them personally, speak in Public Comment, etc."

Sorry, Charlie, but this is just plain not true. Speaking at the BOD meetings oft results in a series of eye-rolling by various board members, subtle smiles and head wags between two or more, etc. In fact, one (initials SC), is on record as saying the speakers at the meeting don't count because there are not enough of them there!

Oh, trust ME on this one! It is all in the public record.

Huh?

Earlier in this massive thread you agree to the over 7% for "actual Avg Raise Per Indy Teacher number, and now you are bailing?

Sorry, no can do! You are on the record, as are the numbers from DZ.

Look, to all ----- the Avg per Indy Teacher, beginning all the way back to '95, has been at 3x the inflation rate, PERIOD!

JQP:

D203 and State on the same page.

http://iirc.niu.edu/District.aspx?source=About_Educators&source2=Teacher_Characteristics&districtID=19022203026&level=D

Taking the 11th root of the ratio AvgSal2010/AvgSal1999 we get

D203 3.62%
State 3.08%

D203 has lost 2 years of average experience and MA% is unchanged (70%).

State has lost 2.3 years of experience and has increased MA % (47% ->57%).

Other posters may say what's the difference? That's a small percentage difference.

Would you prefer costs to go up 3.62% or 3.08% per year when the cost in question is $100,000,000? Or consider what a big difference 3.62% loan is versus a 3.08% loan.

Note that both of are greater than average CPI in that time frame, and benefit costs in that time frame have gone up more than 3.62% per year.

You do the math. It adds up.

-1

-1 wrote:

So do not be deceived that using the increase in average salary tells the whole story when ALL costs are not included and the fact that the average salary was already 20% higher than the state in 1999, and increased at a higher rate since then. And that argument accepts state inflation of average teacher salary as acceptable.

What is the rate at which average salary has increased in the state since 1999?

Three Thom Higgins Comments

1. If the District is not "forced" to levy to the max, then why not abate the tax levy to a 0% increase for the existing homeowner? Why do you stop at 1.1%? You could lower the taxes.

2. Interesting that the Board is not paying attention to us. Not once, prior to my posting the comment about the 5.2% tax increase (quit hiding behind Canterra, we were all suppose to benefit with lower taxes when the TIF expired) and calling for abatements was there ever any discussion of such. Where did they get the idea? Thom, did you like it so much (at least some of it) that you told them? There was not ONE mention of such at the Financial Advisory Board. In fact, this board ENDORSED the 5.2% increase if the District PR is correct.

3. It has been almost a week now. I put an offer to Thom. If you do not have it, check your spam file. I am waiting for an answer.

empty pockets,

Tax breaks would likely have to be given to everyone equally. The only fair system is educational vouchers. Everyone is entitled to a public education and we all know what a public education costs these days. Those who choose to use private schools of any kind get absolutely nothing in return for the taxes they have paid with limited exceptions for some special need students.

Most of those who are most vocal against a fair system of vouchers are totally ignorant of the value of private education and what the cost of public education truly would be if private education as an option did not exist. In SD203 alone at least 3 more elementary schools would be needed with a corresponding increase to junior high and high school enrollment. Do the math proportionately and see how much more we all would be paying in property taxes.

More importantly a voucher system would foster competition (a value our society is supposed to based upon) and that would in turn drive innovation and improvement. The status quo is nothing more than a self serving system that meets the needs of the teachers union more than it meets the needs of the students.

I've got nothing against home schooling either and some families do a wonderful job of it. In some cases far better than what the public school is cable of doing. With more and more distance learning tools available the amount and quality of home schooling should be increasing... yet what do we see? What we see is the teachers union and school bureaucrats doing everything they can to strip away home schooling and making it harder and harder for families to choose home school as an option. If the teachers and their PAC had their way it wouldn't even be an option. Why? Because they feel threatened and they want to maintain their stranglehold of a monopoly and monopolies are never good for anyone other than those who control the monopoly.

The first mistake we make was letting the government be in charge of educating our children. That was a huge mistake. The second mistake was allowing government workers to unionize. What we have now is the education and future of our children in the hands of unionized, government workers.

If we read the Constitution it says the state is responsible for financing education... it doesn't say it is responsible for delivering education. The financing dollars, just like in health care, could be paid out to anyone who provides education just like they are paid to anyone who provides health care. We somehow slipped into this cozy little deal where only public schools receive any of the state financing and it is long overdue that the current financing system is reformed.

If you believe the public education system needs to improve then you should believe that the first step lies with reforming the entire system of education financing.

Here's an update of my D203 1999-2009 salary files.

The first works best on Office 2007 or 2010:

http://www.mediafire.com/?2c8n3tt5858a45q

The 2nd is formatted for Office 97-2003 and is a much larger file.

http://www.mediafire.com/?2k4z36easl73kab

They both include the salary data and Anatomy of a Raise.

Comments are welcome. There are plenty of typos to go around.

-1

To Empty Pockets

Another alternative would be for District 203 to create competition within the District and bid out some ot the schools to charters. This would force schools to compete for students and employees to compete to keep their jobs. Parents would have the choice.

And competition for the charter would lower the cost to the taxpayer,

Schools that do not attract students are closed. A free market model.

Psyche:

Count me out. I'll give you an average increase of 6% to 6.5% for the period 2007-2008 and before, but that's it. That's drops to say 4.8% in 08-09 and 09-10 and is expected to drop further to around 2.8% for the next three years, 10-11 thru 12-13.

Regarding Dan Denys comments:

You will look in vain to find where I state the District is "forced" to levy the maximum.

I will also offer the opinion that as someone who knows all the the school board members fairly well as well as a number of administrators, trust me, I mean seriously, trust me! they aren't reading this blog and they certainly aren't taking any sort of action based on it either. If you all want to have an impact on the District, you have to engage them; show up at meetings, get to know them personally, speak in Public Comment, etc.

The best solution is for more parents to home school their children. Due to technology the real cost of education is dropping. Fewer children in public schools means fewer public school emplyoees.

Break the monopoly on education by home schooling. Stop feeding educators with their outrageous payroll, benefits and pensions Voting for school board is futile.

If your children are home schooled or sent to private schools, petition your legislators for tax breaks.

NOTE TO READERS

There is more open exchange of information on these posts than in the last ten years of District 203 meetings. Please note that the Board monitors these comments and takes actions to meet the issues at a minimum.

Comment on property taxes. Note how Higgins notes that the District is "forced" to levy the maximum they can to deal with uncertainty. You ask why? And is there an alternative?

Answer. They don't have to. They do it because they do not think that they can get another referendum passed.

And why is that? Because they tax everyone $750 more than they promised on the last referendum. Now Thom Higgins will say that when people voted for the recent construction referendum that people voted to ratify the over taxation.

Simply HOGWASH. That issue was never spelled out. People were more worried about their kids going to school in a dump. And they only asked for $40 million out of the $110 million project.

It does not have to be this way. If the District gives fair wage increases (that is the reason that everyone is concerned about characterizing 7% increases as 3.54% increases) and managed the District's resources, then if property taxes fell short, then people could be asked for a minor adjustment to taxes.

But since the Board and its union controllers do not want to take that risk, they over tax by $750 per year and have $40 million in the bank.

District 203 could limit its increase in tax revenues by the amount of the new construction and give all residents a one year reprieve. However, the union objects because they want to reinstate 7% salary increases. In fact, they probably want more to make up for the lower increases in the past five years.

Remember, it does not have to be this way. But 2,000 households have left town not to be replaced. With our punitive taxes, it is only a matter of time before more leave.

Anon on 2/8, 12:37 pm:,

Forget all of the severe depth, double-talk, and gobblygook in thisthread.

It is a simple statement: SD 203 has issued to individual teachers in the district average yearly raises that well exceeded 7% for a period of well over 12 years.

"Average: is used here as a simple concept ---- the average raise per annum received by the individual teachers in the district. No one cares in this particular argument if the admin was able top partially mitigate thse raises via the manipualtion of turnover by staff.

Does -1, Dan D. or Thom Higgins disagree with the above statements? I believe they do NOT as it reflects info from them in this, and earlier, threads.

The real discussion should NOT be about the data, but about the judgement of whether or not these raises are too high.

-1 you are as bad as Higgins. Both of you talk so much gobbledygook, no one can understand you.

Please!

The 3.54% used by QE203 is a lie when advertised as the average raise given to teachers, in 203.

I repeat, IT IS A LIE!

The raises have been a little over 7% for quite awhile. Using the 3.54% number is a deliberate attempt to mislead all of us.

For Anonymous @ Feb 7 2011 9:01am

"The sky is blue."

Thom Higgins

QE203.org

QE203 is Thom's hobby. Thom cherry picks whatever he wants to post on it. If Thom had trouble with any of Zager's numbers he either should not have posted the info or he should have posted it with comments to elaborate on any concerns he may have had. On one hand Thom states that he only posted what ZAger provided and then goes on to say he was already planning to revise some of it... well which version should we believe?

Even if Zager wasn't deliberately being deceitful people still make mistakes all of the time. It took me less than 10 minutes to come up with federal and state provided data that conflicts with most of Zager's numbers. Since Thom has been at this much longer than I... I would think Thom would know where to go and look to at least do a cursory check on accuracy.... or doesn't Thom take any personal pride in the accuracy of info he posts on QE203?

I don't buy the argument about old salary data on a different computer system and I hope no one else does either! PROFESSIONAL managers have been converting from one computer system to another for decades. No one simply walks away from old data and their historical history. NO ONE. New systems are bought on the basis of being able to port the old data over to the new system in one manner or another. If a new system was purchased without such consideration then head should roll because that is just blatant incompetence in this day and age.

We don't need another version of state report cards. All that will do is to continue to confuse and mislead the taxpayer. Same old game played by school boards and school administrators for years... change the report and change it so much so that the old data can no longer be used to compare with the new data/report so we no longer really know how we are doing over time. How about this instead? Let's make a ground rule going in that any changes to data collection or data reporting has to be done in such a way that either the historic data remains valid or provide other provisions to go back and recalculate the old numbers with the new methods? If that can't be done then we continue to collect the old data AND the new data and we have two sets of reports. Maybe after 30 or 40 years of data collection someone in the future can make a determination if we still need both sets at that time.

While we are on the subject of proposed changes how about a change to make it a criminal offense for a school administration official or a school board member to knowing provide false information in an official report? Better yet how about extending that to all elected officials and key government employees at the local and state level? Just like key corporate officials can be held personally responsible for false or misleading information to investors the same kind of penalties should exist in the public sector and not just to protect government bond investors. There is a valid argument that if, for example, a school board is lying about salary information, or test scores or whole bunch of other things and people are induced to purchase a residence in that school district over another school district then they are committing some kind of fraud. Unfortunately, in this day and age all kinds of games get played with the numbers, the stats, and the reports because no one is held accountable. That shouldn't be and something needs to change so these guys can't play these kinds of games and if they do they should go to jail.

To 60565Resident:

With regard to Dave Weeks' censure, your point goes both ways. He may have done something bad that he's not talking about, but by the same token, he may not have done anything that different from what the rest of the board does and they are just going after him because of his politics. I have heard other board members mention topics from closed door sessions.

(school report cards SALARY QUIZ) ANSWERS!!!!

Let the record show that the person asked to submit answers has failed to do so.

Average Raise, Column B and LINE1 quiz. 3 total teachers.

For the basic model, I am assuming there are no lane changes and no retirement bumps. Those add a small layer of complexity to the LINE1 calculations, but not to any other calculations.

A 100,000 ---> 104,000 via 4% contractual raise
B 100,000 ---> retires suddenly (but is otherwise A's identical twin)
C 70,000 ---> 74,200 via 6% contractual raise
D in college ---> 50,000

Average Raise
Column B from http://www.mediafire.com/?cgt62g27b9dr7oe
LINE1
Average Salary Year 1
Average Salary Year 2
LINE3
LINE2

THREE WEEKS LATER AND NO RESPONSE

I will address LINE1, LINE2 and LINE3

LINE1: This is interesting.

So how do we calculate this? We must first think about what the other components are.

LINE2 = Savings due to turnover

LINE3 = Change in total salary or change in average salary (same N, so either works)

LINE3 = (104,000+74200+50000)/(100000+100000+70000) = .845 or an absolute 15.5% decrease. I think there should be zero arguments about this.

Since LINE2 must compare what total salary IS to what it would have been, we must have LINE1 be what salary WOULD have been. |Line2| = Line 1 -Line3 by definition in the excel spreadsheets and on the actual charts. See also below.

LINE1= (104,000 + 104,000** + 74,200)/(100,000+100,000+70,000) = 282,200/270,000
= 1.045 or a 4.5% increase.

Note that to do this we had to CREATE an ESTIMATED salary for each retiree. Even though we knew the actuals for the incumbents, that was not enough for this chart. Here, I was able to use a twin to estimate what the retiring teacher would have earned had he not suddenly retired. (with a scheduled retirement, we'd have to use some contracted number, so I excluded that from my assumptions)

Now we can get LINE2 to be LINE1-LINE3 = 20% savings due to turnover (see also below).

So LINE1 is THEORETICAL increase in average incumbent salary assuming everyone stays. NOT Average Raise.

NOT SO FAST -1!!!

Why can't you use your ColumnB, which is ACTUAL increase in average incumbent salary or percent increase in Total Salary for incumbents?

Let's look:

As it is LINE1-LINE3=
(282,200)/(270,000) - (228,200)/(270000) =54,000/270,000

OR

(104,000-50,000)/(270000) = 54000/270000 = 20%

This makes sense. 104,000 of theoretical salary was replaced by 50,000 of salary and the prior year salary total was 270,000.

Truth be told, if I were to have to create an artificial number like Dave Z had to in order to make someone understand savings due to turnover, I'd prefer 228,200/282,200, but that's a story for another time. I can only work with the parameters of the chart.

If we were to use ColumnB = (104,000+74,200)/(100,000+70,000) = 178,200/170,000 as a LINE1 equivalent...

We'd have (178,200)/(170,000) - (228,200)/(270,000)

Sorry that's not right. We have increase in average incumbent salary (2 teachers counted) minus increase in average salary (3 teachers counted). yuck!

So in my conversation with Dave Zager, he said he gave all retirees some raise, either on chart (like CPI if at 22+) or 6% if in prepared retirement. He was unsure.

Anyway, if the other poster wants to calculate how much more the incumbent teachers actually cost in salary, my ColumnB is where the action is.

If Mr. Zager completely ignored all retirees (doubtful since he told me there were same FTE totals for LINE1 and LINE3), then LINE2 goes away. Poof.

And Mr. Zager agreed that LINE1 was not average raise.

Fine points:

Mr. Zager did total payroll for ALL FTEs. Since we were discussing Full Time teachers, his numbers are slightly different than what was being discussed anyway. Non 1.0FTE teachers do not necessarily get a raise every year, so they will bring down the percent increase in salary costs for incumbents.

The 4 year averages do not add up (check LINE2).

I can say average salary in my discussion by dividing the numerator and denominator by the number of teachers being counted. Or it can be total salary due to(blank).

Taking an average in the chart is a bit off-putting except for LINE3, since you should have canceling numerators and denominators year-over-year if you multiply them. Thus a geometric mean (which would be smaller..do you hear me) is a better metric for line 3. The same goes for ECI since those are ratios and one year-end denominator is the prior years numerator. I'm not sure if ECI-W can multiply cleanly.

I hope this clarifies the limitations of the document Mr. Zager had to create to get the other poster off his thinking that average raise was 3.54%.

I hope it also shows that ColumnB is of more use if you want to know increase in costs due to full time incumbents.

However, since neither document discusses other benefits, ECI should never show up in anyone's discussion unless they wish to haul in benefits increase over that time frame. And since Mr. Greenspan was discussing ECI NOT ECI-W, to select out ECI-W as a reference point is foolish.

-1 -- hoping for no obvious maths error ;>)

Responding to Anonymous’ post of | February 5, 2011 10:59 AM

I’m hardly ducking or shifting anything. I’m simple stating who is the author of the data included in What is the Best Educational Value in Chicagoland? I have to say I smiled at you remonstrating me for not verifying Mr. Zager’s information. He is the Ast. Supt. of Finance for D203 after all, I’m supposed to verify it how? And for the record, I’m proud to be able to offer this information to the public, absent me requesting Dave to prepare this information, readers would not have one place that so thoroughly explains the topic.

I do take your point about the differences in time frames and it’s something I was already planning on revising in the updated analysis. The average salary increase and ECI (wages btw) data was to give some sort of long term historical background as Dave is not realistically able to go back before 2006-2007 for the salary percentages, as prior to that they utilized another software program that’s no longer being used. This contrary to statements made about Dave “refusing to go back farther” which implies that he could but was unwilling to do so.

As to ECI, Dave's utilizes the data for all workers as his benchmark.

As to average salary for specific SD’s they do post that information. You can find it on the ISBE report card, but this is the easiest source: The Illinois interactive Report Card.

Now, a word of warning; when you find the average salary data you can average it out to find the 3.54%. However if you try to reconcile the percentage increases from this data to Dave’s line 3 you will find that the percentages are off for 06-07 and 09-10 (07-08 and 08-09 are within a .1% as I remember), not huge, but there is a variance. My understanding from conversations with Dave (which I am attempting to clarify and put in the revised analysis) is that Dave’s Position Control System counts all “certified staff” call it 1325 employees. The ISBE only counts teachers, say, 1100. Additionally, Dave has never been able to clarify with the ISBE exactly how they arrive at this number (average salary).Certified staff includes social workers, psychologists, counselor's, etc.

As an aside, I was recently talking to State Representative Darlene Senger about the state report cards and she indicated that they are in the process of being revised. Actually, I need to finish a draft about suggested revisions that I promised her about them.

Hope this helps

Thom Higgins

QE203.org

I posted earlier that Thom Higgins would shift and duck and blame others in a situation like this. Thom HIggins should have taken the time to VERIFY any info Zager provided to him before he used it in any way or posted it up on his website QE203. To do otherwise is unprofessional and unacceptable.

So let's take a bit of a closer look at the numbers Thom alleges was provided by Zager:

First, let's focus on the numbers in the yellow bar followed by the ECI number in the right purple bar. Why didn't Zager report ECI numbers in the purple bar that matched the same reporting period in the yellow bar which was 2006 - 2010? Going to the US Treasury's BLS website and looking at the time period in question the 2006 - 2010 ECI average for wages and salaries of teachers was 2.54 percent and the 2006 - 2010 ECI average for total compensation of teachers was 2.92 percent. Zager didn't indicate if his ECI number was for total compensation or just wages and salaries, but it does leave the question of was the use of a different reporting period a deliberate attempt to bring the ECI number closer to his reported salary numbers?

Second, now let's focus on the ISBE number in the first purple box. Again we find a reporting period that does not match the columns to the left. Going to the ISBE website there is a treasure trove of information about teacher salaries in case anyone is interested. However the ISBE does not post an average for all teachers. Instead it breaks the average down in terms of bachelor degree min, bachelor degree max, masters degree min, masters degree max, etc. Looking at the reported averages for all of the categories in the 2006 - 2010 reporting period the lowest average reported was 2.775 percent and the highest reported average was 2.975 percent. Without knowing the distribution of teachers in each of the categories it is impossible to determine the exact average but we do know it has to be somewhere between the lowest and highest. Again, the question is staring us in the face of why Zager chose to use two different reporting periods for both the ISBE and ECI numbers and why neither of these reporting periods matched the data being reported in to the left in yellow.

Finally, as I said the ISBE provides an literal treasure trove of teacher salary info on their website. I encourage everyone to go take a look at the data. Most people will be surprised, some shocked, when comparisons are made against similar demographics. (More on that later, because it will take time to mine the data.) However, what I found to be really interesting is that NONE of the numbers Zager reported in any of the yellow boxes matches what Zager (or someone else in SD 203) reported to the ISBE. Nope not one year matches. Hmm, how could that possibly be?

Something smells fishy here and it isn't a dead fish.

The problem, Mr. Higgins, is that you intentionally mislead, then when you are caught at it you try to deflect and claim "it ain't me!".

You have marched out Dave's numbers for years now as gospel truth. Now that we can ALL see you misrepresented them, you want to bail on them.

No Can do! I think -1 had been very clear in creating & using new, and ACCURATE, numbers so we can all see the true Averages Per Individual and we can all now see that we have been issuing huge raises for a decade and a half.

Are the raises too high? I don't know as that is a judgement call and a different argument. But we clearly have outdated these raises at about 3X inflation (that is a data point).

Another general question for the cheap seats:

Does anyone really care what kind of a "deal" 203 is versus others?

I mean, really! Should one pay $50k for a Jetta just because it would still be a good car cheaper than a Mercedes 500?

Spending should ALWAYS be analyzed first as a derivative of itself. ANy analyst knows this. Comparables only really come into the equation when trying to affix a value to something, As we all learned in Econ, the more expensive a thing becomes the closer its value comes to dropping. Supply and demand assure this, but so does the concept of substitutions.

The qe203 Value study is nothing more than a ready excuse for spending patterns that have risen way to drastically for our town and our economy. The simple fact that we have given raises for 15 years that tripled inflation is a simple enough concept to use to understand we are out of control.

This school board will not change that. The reason is simple: all but one has been actively endorsed and supported by the Teachers Union. This support has not only been direct via tens of thousands of dollars, but indirectly via physical manual support in "getting the word out" and walking the streets. It also manifested itself in some illegal activities using OUR tax dollars (via 203 equipment and time IN SCHOOL which we paid for) to actively campaign against some sitting board members.

It is my opinion that this is the very description of corruption and conflict of interest.

That is why I will vote for ANYONE who is not an incumbant in the April school board elections.

>>One incumbant has been on the board for 8 years already ---- I support term limits and 8 years are enough.

>>One incumbant has from my viewpoint done a subpar job on the administrative aspects of the construction of NCHS. He failed to protect us from a strike, he outright said Money is no object on the project, and the obvious conflict of interest between his fulltime job and his work on the board dealing with construction companies and unions is borderline immoral.

>>One incumbant is himself a past radical union negotiator with an easily determinded leaning and sympathy for unions.

Time for change we can believe in and rely on to represent us!

Who is on the Citizens Finance Advisory Committee and who appoints them?

Do the members have any experience in budgeting? Financing? Debt?

This line by TH is acute and needs to be put into perspective if anyone really wants to understand the mindset of the School Board:

"...it typically chooses the Debt Service Levy as it allows for a one time abatement. If the District chose to instead not increase the Operating Levy by CPI one year, it would forever reduce taxes by the amount it chose not to levy."

To be clear, TH is saying the Board abates the debt fund so that the dollar amount does not carry forward into perpetuity, right?

God forbid they give back to the taxpayer on a permanent basis!

But wait! Oh, no!:

Isn't this the same School Board mindset that jammed the 2002 referendum to us and implemented it in a manner that was contrary to their promises, which resulted in a gross overcollection that continues and gets added to, forever, into perpetuity, with the cumulative total standing at about, what, $65 million or so and growing?

THAT is why they continue to build such large surpluses ---- they are stealing from the taxpayer!

So the critical question is as follows:

If they could TAKE from us on a permanent basis (into perpetuity), why can't they GIVE back in the same way?

I despair at ever getting -1 to grasp one simple, immutable, fact:

I did not create the format, percentages, or narrative contained in Overview of Teachers Salary Increases For Fiscal Years 2007-2010

Allow me to state this again:

I DID NOT CREATE THE FORMAT, PERCENTAGES, OR NARRATIVE CONTAINED IN Overview of Teachers Salary Increases For Fiscal Years 2007-2010!!!

As Indicated in the document itself, the Ast. Supt. of Finance for D203 graciously provided this information (upon my request), in order for there to be a factual analysis of D203 teachers salary increases available for people to inspect.

-1 can attack me forever for not ”seeing what the truth is.” Frankly, for some time I’ve looked at his posts here as farce more than anything else. Consider his latest comments here:

”Anyway, even LINE3 of the worksheet is wrong (sorry Dan D and Dave Z). The multi-year average should be a Geometric Mean.”

”So LINE1 is incorrectly labeled. Either LINE2 does not exist or LINE1 cannot be used by Mr. Higgins as he thinks. And LINE3 average is flawed if we see it as a multiplier.”

”Nice document.”

Lines 1-2-3 that -1 refers to are the work of the Ast. Supt. of Finance for D203, not Thom Higgins, not QE203.org.

-1 is entitled to his opinion of the accuracy of this data, but it is simply that, his opinion. If he wants to complain that I can't grasp the truth because I've put my faith in the the information provided by a D203 administrator as opposed to him, I truly could care less.

As I’ve repeatedly stated, the reader can believe the Ast. Supt. of Finance or they can trust an anonymous blogger. Everyone knows who I believe. If anyone wants to believe an anonymous blogger instead, again, I really don’t care.

However, I do request that -1 stop criticizing me for the facts and figures in a document I did not create.

Thom Higgins

QE203.org

There was a terrific Letter to the Editor from Dave Weeks in Wednesday's Naperville Sun. He called for all School Board candidates to reveal their NUEA and other union endorsements.

Please publicize this information!

A few thoughts trying to clarify Dan Denys comments about property taxes. As stated previously there are two Levys, the Operating Levy and the Debt Service Levy.

The Debt Service levy is to retire $42.4M in bond debt for the facilities re-construction and is a fixed amount payable annually (in this case about $3M) that cannot change over its life (20 years).

The Operating Levy (call it $205M annually) is for the operation of the District. It typically increases annually by CPI, and is governed (limited) by the Tax Cap law (PTEL).

What gets confusing is when the District wants to reduce its property taxation for a given year, it typically chooses the Debt Service Levy as it allows for a one time abatement. If the District chose to instead not increase the Operating Levy by CPI one year, it would forever reduce taxes by the amount it chose not to levy. (Paging -1).

Mr. Denys can call it manipulation, but the fact of the matter is that the District, under PTEL, can increase the Operating Levy every year up to CPI or 5%, whichever is less. Secondly, taxpayers voted to increase our taxes to fund the facilities re-construction effort. The District has every right to levy the 2.7% increase and not abate the DSL. To present the Districts efforts to keep increases down as manipulation is grossly unfair. It’s too bad that Mr. Denys, and -1 for that matter, can’t give the District some credit for their willingness to abate taxes when the District feels it can. Paging -1 again for a long dissertation of how D203’s over collecting. It’s OK, I understand your feelings, honest.

But let’s take their side for the moment, why doesn’t the District levy less than 2.7% (or CPI for any given year) for its Operating Levy, given the soft economy? I think a lot of it has to do with uncertainty. The District may well not abate this year if the State of Illinois can’t give SD’s some clarity on the State funding amounts. There is also talk of transferring some of the pension funding obligations to SD’s. No decision has been made, which in some ways is worse, as the uncertainty makes planning for the future difficult. Lastly, CPI has been bouncing around quite a bit. That again makes long range planning for budgets difficult.

Mr. Denys had some confusion about Mr. Zager’s 2.4% comment. That is simply the District levying the 2.7% CPI for the Operating Levy and a .3% abatement of the DSL for the Navistar TIF for a net of 2.4%. Chances of that happening are extremely high. If the District abates the entire DSL then the net increase will be 1.1% (2.7%-1.6%). Since -1 has taken me to task for my 1.1% comment, I’ll assume he will also find fault with Mr. Zager’s 2.4% here as well it’s the same logic. I guess Mr. Zager is innumerate too in -1’s eyes. Who knew? Mr. Denys is making the same comments in his post referencing the 1.1% figure. Is he innumerate too? Is -1 the only person who understands these issues, or is he just playing games with us?

We know the limiting CPI for the next year’s Operating Levy (2011 payable in 2012) is 1.5%. Meaning that the District can increase the Operating Levy by 1.5% and collect the DSL of 1.3% (Full DSL of 1.6%- .3% for the Navistar TIF- I’m quite sure the TIF rebate will be passed and we will continue to see this abatement annually) for a total increase of 2.8% (3.1% if the Navistar TIF deal falls through- again, doubtful). That is the maximum they can Levy next year. It will be up to the SB and Admin of D203 to decide what percentage to levy sometime next winter, and whether to abate or not.

Readers should know that the District is advised by a Citizens Finance Advisory Committee on these matters. It is my understanding that said committee is in agreement with the Districts levy and budget amounts.

I’ll also point readers once again to What is the best Educational Value in Chicagoland ? Look at how much D203’s peers are spending and tell me why I’m supposed to feel bad about D203? I’ll also mention that there are many, many, other SD’s in the Chicago area not listed in the above that spend more than D203. And as I always state: There isn’t another SD’s in the Chicago area that spends less but the students post higher ACT scores.

Thom Higgins

QE203.org

Dan D:

I have no idea where Dave Zager is coming up with 2.4%.

I think that figure is with the 440K Navistar abatement for the DSL.
.
.
.
The reason I keep addressing Mr. Higgins is that I trust that at some point he will see what the truth is.

I am becoming increasingly doubtful that he will let his conscious self see the folly of his ways, but maybe, just maybe, at night when he sleeps, he will start to realize truth and it will eventually seep forwards.

For better or for worse, he has a Political Action Committee and a website which people may or may not listen to. We can only hope he starts to fix his thoughts.

My hope comes from his Zowie moment when clarity struck him.

Anyway, even LINE3 of the worksheet is wrong (sorry Dan D and Dave Z). The multi-year average should be a Geometric Mean.

So LINE1 is incorrectly labeled. Either LINE2 does not exist or LINE1 cannot be used by Mr. Higgins as he thinks. And LINE3 average is flawed if we see it as a multiplier.

Nice document.

I will try to rerun my original sheet soon and include a geometric mean for the AVERAGE RAISE. That will, as expected, yield a slightly lower number than what is there now. Since I am averaging a multiplier over number of teachers, that makes more sense. Now that I can ignore Mr. Higgins' inanities, I can do what I wanted to do before. I will bump up to 1.25 since D203 is still offering 4 X 6%. I will keep MIN=.8 since .8 * 1.25 = 1. Anyone can change these values still.

I will include an overview of raises. Any close reader will notice that I used 08-09 to 09-10. That year puts teachers in the best possible light of all years since the BASE was 2.0% and the CPI was 4.1%

Once we have confirmation of what exactly the terms are for the latest contracts, I can add those sheets into the file. All I need to do is multiply each cell by (1+base).

Any other suggestions would be appreciated.

Really, truly, does anyone have a link to the latest contract? It is about one year old.

Naperville Sun...do you know where it is?

-1

A few comments,

This thread has now run to about 390 comments. Lot's of good discussion and lots of great passion on the subject.

At this point just about anything Thom Higgins posts has on this thread is next to meaningless and for the most part I've now reached the point where I pretty much ignore anything Thom posts and focus mostly on what others have to write.

Why? Well, for one thing there are serious issues in SD 203 that need to be discussed and Thom has chosen to exclude himself from an honest discussion of the issues and it is clear that Thom is not willing to help find a solution... so that effectively makes Thom part of the problem not part of the solution.

The second thing is that Thom has pretty much defined himself as a liberal Democrat who chooses to align himself with the teachers union. That's not a really smart move to make in conservative Naperville... unless a person deliberately choses to make themselves an easy mark. More about that in a bit.

Now if Thom actually had his own thoughts I'd be willing to at least listen, but since all he seems capable of is being a bobble head for whatever position the union takes then I really think whatever needs to be discussed in terms of the issues should really be with the union or the school board or the administration and not with Thom. Heck, Thom isn't an official spokesperson for the teachers union or the school board or any other community group in SD203 anyway. Thom is an official spokesperson for QE203 because QE203 and Thom Higgins are one and the same and QE203 really isn't honestly any kind of true or independent organization.... mostly QE203 is Thom's hobby web site.

Somehow this thread has denigrated into a conversation of endless debate of Thom versus everyone else. Not one single other person posts in support of Thom or anything Thom writes. It is clear to me that Thom has so much time on his hands that he will continue to post ad nauseam just so he can attempt to be the center of this discussion and make it about him instead of letting others discuss the real issues.

Since Thom has demonstrated time and time again that he is not intellectually capable of having an honest discussion of the issues I'm simply going to ignore Thom and whatever he posts in the future. If that marginalizes Thom... so be it... he pretty much deserves it anyway. I've become convinced Thom is really nothing more than a narcissist who enjoys the attention he gets by annoying and antagonizing others as opposed to someone who actually brings anything of value to a discussion of SD203.

For that reason I've decided to simply ignore Thom and focus my comments and discussion with other users who genuinely care to discuss real issues in SD 203. I hope other will follow my lead and do the same.

It won't be easy. Thom will continue to bait and provoke. Silence is golden because without the attention a narcissist has nothing to feed his own self-aggrandizing. Please don't feed the narcissist!

One more.

I can usually figure out WHY someone is thinking incorrectly.

It hit me this AM.

I am pretty sure Mr. Higgins thinks AVERAGE PERCENT RAISE applies to a DOLLAR of payroll, NOT an individual teacher. That's why he is using a mediant (which can look like a arithmetic mean).

ColumnB is applicable to total incumbent payroll as I have said all along (applicable to an individual dollar of salary). So if we want to talk about how much total salary costs have increased for ALL incumbent teachers we use ColumnB. Column B represents percent increase in average incumbent salary (not average percent increase in individual incumbent salary).

ColumnC is applicable to individual teachers, and can be used as a surrogate for a career arc of raises, and even moreso when averaged over 10 years. So when we talk about the average raise of incumbent teachers we can use Column C. If someone wants to compare what their raise has been to that teachers, ColumnC is useful.

As I said about 100 times, each represents a different event.

I was nice enough to calculate both.

My formulas are scattered throughout this page and in other threads.

Mr. Zager calculated neither, but if he did calculate ColumnB, then LINE2 disappears. Not his fault for not calculating either number. He made a spreadsheet so that he could demonstrate where LINE3 came from to a person (Thom Higgins) who thought LINE3 was AVERAGE RAISE.

Better yet, go to the last pages of my D203 1999-2009 Raise Analysis and see what actual teachers have received. The sheet label is Alpha Year Over Year.

No concern about averages. No concern about correcting for partial FTE. Pure numbers. You may think a certain teacher is being ripped off. You may say..sounds right. You may say..sounds like too much. Make your own decision.

I am providing information.

And for an example of how raises happen refer to my other file.

-1

(school report cards)

Living in a cul-de-sac has its good and its bad.

A nice little quiz, from which I will poach some info and turn it around.

http://eldar.mathstat.uoguelph.ca/dashlock/Outreach/FS/12%29FSSept06TheDeviantMediant.pdf

A free throw shooting contest. Each team will have both players take 5 shots.

TH made 40/200 = 20% of his practice free throws. He is paired with PS who made 93/300 = 31% of his practice free throws.

They are competing against DD and MD. DD made 100/400 = 25% of his practice free throws while MD made 32/100 = 32% of his practice free throws.

Which team is more likely to win the competition?

Which team has the team higher shooting percentage?

What's going on?
.
.
.
.
My son got 100%, 80% and 90% on his three maths tests. Each test had 20 questions and each test covered an equal amount of material. The first test was worth 100 points, the second was worth 200 points and the third was worth 200 points. What percent score do you expect him to get on the 4th test (20 questions, worth 100 points), given that past performance predicts his performance on this test. Justify your answer.

What percent of all points has he earned in the class before the 4th test if his only scores are from the tests.

What is going on?
.
.
.
Mr Higgins. I will on longer address you regarding LINE1 since you have failed to take my basic salary quiz and fail to understand what Mr. Zager created. Since you also believe the LINE1 represents an arithmetic mean, it is impossible for me to even try to have a reasonable discussion involving numbers. On anything.

Not understanding arithmetic mean is as bad if not worse than your 3.54% average raise claim from March 2009. Or your agreement with Susan Crotty's $18M in savings. Or your continued use of sum life-of-theoretical-bond interest payments. Or the complaint about arithmetic mean and geometric mean out of the blue, when that was being done to be FAIR and consistent. Or ignoring your Zowie moment. Or your apparent denial of over-collections from the 2002 referendum. I could go on, but why.

You have proven yourself to be innumerate.

I WILL call you out when you produce incorrect information. I have a lot of work cut out for me. I WILL agree at times about good thoughts that come from you. I think I had an entire post devoted to good ideas that you mentioned.

The AVERAGE RAISE issue is entirely too deep for you to comprehend. It is disappointing that you flitter from percentage to dollars and back as you feel like it and do not grasp the subtleties in doing so. (I had more examples trying to explain AVERAGE RAISE but I would be pissing into the wind.)

Regarding the tax increase. I addressed it to all people who understand arithmetic mean, and you piped up with incorrect comments, showing further lack of what was being discussed.

You cannot grasp opportunity cost, present value, or what savings actually are. You cannot follow the flow of dollars from the taxpayer to the district coffers and realize that extra money the district collects is OURS and there should be no claims of savings when they spend it on district-related costs.

In a word, sad.

I think it’s pretty clear that for -1, nothing the District does to minimize taxes on D203 residents will be acceptable absent some kind of permanent abatement (reduction) in property taxes.

You have this strange habit of placing thoughts and feelings and WORDS into people's mouths (and then wonder why they thought or said those things). I think what I want is an honest assessment of the district, not the hero-worshipping crap that you keep typing.

I look forward to being at the table for your past meetings with Dave Zager. Public information is public information.

-1

I think it's time to close this thread. No one is getting anywhere with these arguments.

Higgins wrote:

• D203 benchmarks against 4 or 5 other CUSD’s. D203 teachers salaries consistently rank in the middle of the group.

Not true.

Show me average salary data that matches this.

ISBE, perhaps, which you like to refer to.

I know D203 has created a specific contract grid point comparison, but that has nothing to do with reality. It was a 1-6 ranking for each of the points. That has nothing to do with what is actually happening on the grid.

By the way, any chance your buddies over at D203 would be willing to actually post the latest contract?

What, we are about a year later and there still has been no chance for the public to review the details?

-1

Ah....to the not so way back machine.

Higgins wrote (when misreading one of my examples): They do not receive a fixed dollar raise as in your example. Instead they receive a percentage increase.

Yes, in fact teachers receive a PERCENTAGE INCREASE.

Yes, Column B looks at total increase in salary expense for incumbent teachers.

Total dollar increase.

Not individual percentages.

Not average of individual percentages.

I'm going to blow Thom Higgins' mind right now and send him jumping for joy.

The problem is that he won't get what I am saying.

If you apply a raise equal to column B to every teacher included instead of their actual percent raises you'd get the same number for column B.

Really.

That does NOT mean column B equals average percent raise for incumbent teachers. To do that, you'd have to average the percent raises, i.e. column C. In Column B we are looking a change in total dollars as a percentage of total dollars spent the year prior on the same teachers. In column C we are looking at individual teachers' percent raises, salary independent.

You see, when looking at a teacher over the lifetime of a career, for example YOUR ZOWIE MOMENT, you multiply their percent raises and then multiply by the starting salary. It does not matter what their salary was when they got a specific percent raise. The multiplication is order independent. My method (which is slightly better when done as a geometric mean, but heaven forbid I mention that since you apparently don't even know what an arithmetic mean is despite heckling me for discussing the difference between AM and GM in that past TO BE FAIR TO THE TEACHERS) calculates that number better than ColumnB or LINE1.

That is what was being discussed, that is what you had your Zowie moment on.

If at some point, you'd like to revisit your Zowie and explain it, that would save a lot of typing.

Average raise, as calculated in Column C, is of interest to many people, including you back then.

Plain and simple, ColumnB and ColumnC represent different events.

ColumnB represents [average (incumbent DOLLAR increase)] as a percentage of [average (incumbent salary)] for the teachers included in the analysis. A ratio of averages. If you look up, say, mediant or freshman sum, you will see this is the number being calculated. It is often incorrectly used.

Anyway, LINE1, if calculated as per Dave Zagar's rules and actually making LINE2 have any meaning, is LESS, I said LESS, relevant to understanding the total increase in dollars paid to incumbent teachers for a specific year than my ColumnB. I'd think he'd agree with that.

If he calculated LINE1 like ColumnB, then LINE2 goes poof into the air.

This is not up for discussion since you have not even figured out what LINE1 represents.

So if you are happy with having an increase in salary expense for incumbent teachers average 6.61% from 1999-2009 EXCLUDING the 20% spikers, then great. I think many would not be happy. That is my opinion.

fwiw, that correlates with the 6.92% AVERAGE RAISE.

other quick notes. I should probably include the 20% single year spikers. It turns out that a single 20% spike is less damaging than 4 6% raises when the end of lane raise averages up to, I think, 3.5%. I'll redo the calculations, but there may be good reason to allow the MAXUP to be 1.25 to be more consistent with present contracting.

It is also a good reason to agree with you to dump the 4 X 6% raises.
.
.
.

The bottom line to all this is D203 can, under the Tax Cap law, increase the operating Levy by 2.7% and keep the Debt Service Levy intact. This means property tax bills will increase 2.7%.

Not really. See my above analysis on why the tax bills would increase by less than 2.7% if DSL is not abated. Even without the abatement, the DSL doesn't get hit with the 2.7% increase. Thus property tax bills would go up by less than 2.7% even with the full DSL. The Navistar DSL abatement makes that number slightly lower.

My only comment on -1’s long dissertations is this: If he thinks property tax bills will rise more (in aggregate- individual bills can vary for a number of reasons) than 2.7% if the District does nothing, 2.4% if it abates only the Navistar TIF or 1.1% if it abates the DSL in its entirety, compared to last years tax bills, then he is incorrect,

I getting Higginsed again. I'd agree with you had I ever suggested such a thing.

Clearly you have no ability to understand basic concepts or read.

Reread my post above.

I am asking for a consistent comparison year over year to BE FAIR to D203 on years when they go from abating to not abating the DSL so that people don't freak out that D203 is increasing collections more than CPI, and so that the district doesn't get inappropriate credit when the tax bill goes up less than CPI.

You are incorrigible.

Finally, let me echo something DanD alluded to. If the total PTEL-allowable levy goes up by CPI and certain businesses get to appeal their assessments and have them shifted downward, the extra cost gets passed onto homeowners since the home would then represent a higher percentage of the taxable property.

-1

AN OBSERVATION ON MINUS 1 COMMENTS

District 203 can "manage" its property taxes to maximize the impact that they have on the typical taxpayer and generate revenue to the District. And the resulting impact can vary on us.

For example, this year they can raise their "Operating Taxes" by 2.7%. This applies to 98.5% of the tax bill. The other $3 million is a fixed amount of taxes to be collected over 20 years (18 years left). So as long as our assessment remains "proportional" to the overall District (this is another subtle problem impacting homeowners, but this is another post and is not controlled by the school district directly), then our taxes would be limited t o 2.65%. I have no idea where Dave Zager is coming up with 2.4%.

Now here is the manipulation. If the District abates all of the debt service levy (1.5% of the projected tax bill), then our bill goes up only 1.1%. Fair enough.

But then next year when the limit on operating tax rates is 1.5%, then the District will increase our taxes by 3% when they reinstate the debt tax. That is what happened in 2010. The increase was to be 0.1%, but since they had eliminated the debt tax in 2009, our taxes went up 1.6% instead.

The core issue on this matter is that the District should levy taxes for what they need, not for the maximum they can get. Costs have not gone up 2.7% this year. More importantly, the District will have accumulated $20 million more than the minimum they said they needed AFTER paying the final construction costs.

And here is how all of this ties to the Higginisms of teacher pay. For the next five years, would it be fair to limit total teacher compensation (salaries and District paid benefits) increases (to those who come back each year, not netting out turnover) to CPI? Maybe even CPI plus 1%? Also, based on the deceleration in salaries and the over supply of teachers, should the District adopt a two tiered payroll system where new teachers get paid 10 to 15% less (based on -1's observation that 203 teachers make 27% more than the state average)? Is there any reason to pay more than the market? And teacher levels should over time adjust to declining enrollment, 1% per year.

If the union agreed to such a salary program, then the "net" salaries should surely in line with CPI. Then the District could live within the tax cap. And they could lower taxes further by using the $20 million extra to reduce taxes not just in 2011, but for at least the next five years and still maintain their financial objectives.

THIS IS WHAT THIS ENTIRE POST HAS BEEN ABOUT.

I accept paying taxes. I support fair compensation and preserving appropriate programs. (By the way, if there are failed programs, eliminate them. Government never cuts, always adds.--more potential savings to the District. Better yet, use the extra money to expand the elementary day and offer ALL elementary students foreign language.) I detest OVERTAXATION AND OVERSPENDING.

If these ideas were adopted now, District 203 schools would remain financial sound and taxpayer burden would be moderated. My concern is that the District has accumulated this extra $20 million and the ability to collect even more. Will the current union supported school board be able to balance the interests of the community and the taxpayers?

A CHALLENGE TO THOM HIGGINS

The above is the approach that these other school districts have taken since they do not have the pleasure of gouging their taxpayers. Just as I reached out to you in 2009, I will repeat my challenge to you right now. Make constructive comments and let's mutually develop a template for the next five years of 203. Quite frankly, I am more pleased with the actions of this board than its predecessor. I do not agree 100%, but am tolerant. The Board cannot return all of the $750 over collection, but they can address more than $90 of it.

And -1, I would welcome your thoughts as well.

A CHALLENGE TO THE SUN

There is more review of the issues of District 203 on this blog than EVER gets into your newspaper. You should crystallize the issues and make sure that all of the candidates take specific positions. Make sure the voters know where all of the candidates stand on the issues. I think your failure in reporting on these matters (you made NO MENTION OF THE MASSIVE--yes 2.65% is MASSIVE in 2011--TAX INCREASE in your reporting. Just fluff. You have not noted what raise teachers are going to be in the last year of the contract and how these raises compare to the rest of the world. I would submit that decline in circulation is because of an inferior product. You don't have a tax cap to maintain your revenues.

A minor errata:

In the Completeness paragraph the last sentence should have read:

"Again look at the difference in their average salary (not raise) and the ISBE number.

Off to try to dig out.

Thom Higgins

QE203.org

DD forgot to address the real tragedy: the $300,000 home from 2001 is now only worth $220,0000, yet the taxes on that devalued home have increased tremendously in both % and actual dollars!

Yet people like Higgins want to keep collecting more and more just because they can!

http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?of9dzgw1id3y832

Please download this new file and tell me what you think as far as showing base, step,and lane.

It probably needs some better explanation of why so many teachers are at the end of the lane, but have salaries past step 22.

I think it needs a slightly better description of base increase as a multiplier of the entire salary sheet.

This is a very rough 1st draft.

I think the colors and clicking between the years do a nice job of showing what happens.

Yes, even my shovel-wielding friend can use this.

-1

The wind’s blowing like crazy outside, but the furnace and fireplace are doing their job so this is going to be as brief as I can make it. I’ve far more pleasurable things to do on a snowy night.

First, a few general comments:

• D203 enjoys a balanced budget, and projects balanced budgets through 2015-2016. In this D203 is fortunate as many SD’s are facing significant deficits. Anyone who knows the Ast. Supt. of Finance appreciates the conservative nature of the projections. I fully expect that balanced budgets will ultimately extend past 2015-2016 barring some unforeseen major event.

• Through cost control and a recent teachers contract that has teachers accepting a base and step freeze this year and reduced increases for the next two years, D203 has been able to maintain existing programs and staffing,as well as, continuing to expand and improve educational opportunities.

• D203 benchmarks against 4 or 5 other CUSD’s. D203 teachers salaries consistently rank in the middle of the group.

• D203’s expenditures are quite modest compared to many of its peers see What is the best Educational Value in Chicagoland ? for more details.

• We continue to talk about the past. This raise discussion only applies to raises for the 07-08 school year and prior.

.

To try to address the recent comments here I’m going to talk about the various raise percentage and their sources from two perspectives: completeness and fiscal relevance.

Lack of Completeness:

Both the Taxpayer’s Ticket 7.2% claim. that only takes into consideration teachers employed continuously between 2000 and 2006, and -1’s similar comparison he posted last year(I’m too lazy to look up the posts), for teachers employed continuously between 2003 and 2008, do not paint a accurate picture of teachers raises as they only contain calculations for teachers who fit these specific time frames. The fact that the TT analysis claims an average salary of $86,482 vs. $72,071, as reported by the ISBE for 2006, should tell us that there’s something wrong here. Does this method fairly and completely illustrate D203 teachers raises? No. They both lack completeness as they miss a significant portion of teachers, i.e. you started in 2001-2002-2003-2004 or 2005 are you counted in 2006? No, and conversely, if you left in those same years you aren’t counted either. The benefit of this is, of course, it conveniently lead to higher percentages than is true of the whole. Again look at the difference in their average raise and the ISBE number.

Lack of Fiscal Relevance:

Of all the various raise percentages mentioned, the TT 7.2% claim, line 1. Of QE203.org’s Overview of Teachers Salary Increases For Fiscal Years 2007-2010 and Column B and Column C of -1’s worksheet, all of them are derived from dollar amounts except for -1’s Column C “average raise” that he is so proud of. This is why -1 continues to not address the fact that his “average raise” lacks fiscal relevance. I’m not going to waste any more time explaining why again. Readers can go to my Dollars vs. Debating Points post comment if they want to read more, but suffice to say -1’s calculation is not how averages are typically calculated. Hence the readers problem with understanding what this calculation represents. It also conveniently produces a higher percentage.

So, if we are interested in the most complete and fair analysis of D203 teachers raises that actually has fiscal relevance where is one to look? First place goes to QE203.org’s Overview of Teachers Salary Increases For Fiscal Years 2007-2010 as the percentages were supplied by the Ast. Supt. of Finance for D203 utilizing the Districts Position Control System. I’ll give second place to -1’s column B which is a close approximation of Line 1. Out of contention are Column C as it’s meaningless from a fiscal perspective and both the TT and -1’s analysis that significantly limit the number of teachers counted.

Lastly on this topic, I’ll note that I will be updating QE203’s salary analysis in the near future with the help once again of D203’s Ast. Supt. of Finance.

.

And finally, a brief comment on -1’s post regarding D203’s property tax levy. I stand by the accuracy of my comments here: specifically, ”The bottom line to all this is D203 can, under the Tax Cap law, increase the operating Levy by 2.7% and keep the Debt Service Levy intact. This means property tax bills will increase 2.7%. If both abatements are approved, causing the DSL to be abated in its entirety, the result will be a 1.1% increase instead. I will offer the opinion that if D203 abates they will potentially be the only school district in Illinois to do so”

My only comment on -1’s long dissertations is this: If he thinks property tax bills will rise more (in aggregate- individual bills can vary for a number of reasons) than 2.7% if the District does nothing, 2.4% if it abates only the Navistar TIF or 1.1% if it abates the DSL in its entirety, compared to last years tax bills, then he is incorrect, and best of all, the proof will be in all our mail boxes this spring. Stay tuned.

Thom Higgins
QE203.org

Another Higginism

"I seems every week there is another newspaper article about various Districts that are in deficit, laying off teachers, or cutting programs and extracurricular activities. Some of them spend more than D203 and yet are in deficit, so please someone, tell me why I’m supposed to be unhappy?"

I think the following list would suffice.

1. The District collects $750 more than they promised.
2. The District is collecting at least $500 more than they need.
3. The District has not tightened their belt like the rest of us.
4. 2000 of your neighbors have lost their house and more are on their way.
5. The District pays teachers 27% more than average.
6. The children of the Tiger mom's are getting great value from the District. Many others are not quite sure.
7. The District as part of the Illinois house of cards will come crashing down, very hard, when property tax assessments are cut 40 to 50% to reflect the market (and predictions of further declines are prevelant, particularly for Illinois that is losing jobs to the Red states) that will limit school taxes--with no option for referendum. This will hit poorer Districts sooner and funding will be transferred to the state at the state average. Your children will be enrolled when this chaos begins.

A few links regarding someone's claim

In the same vein -1 last year jumped onto this bandwagon and did an analysis that returned 7%

Into the wayback machine, Sherman. Set it for February 2009.

My first post in the blogs: Feb 11, 2009

Later in early March 2009:

A post responding to Mr. Higgins Zowie. And a direct request from me of what to ask Mr. Zager.

My request that he know the difference between increase in average salary and average raise.

Mr. Higgins insisting he has no concerns with the accuracy of his statements.

Me sending him an excel file to try to clear up his thinking that average raise was 3.54%

I'm sorry.

I think I was trying to educate someone. Any bandwagon was that of helping Mr. Higgins understand what he was saying.

That person created the PAC qe203.org to lobby against the TT in 2007 and ridiculed their 7.2% raise information so much that he copied it and continues to host it on the website. He thought they were using selective data to make up a lie. Only because he was convinced that average raise was 3.54%. He felt the pain in his Zowie moment.

I, all of 4 weeks into investigating teacher salaries and D203 finances, was able to see that he did not know what he was talking about. I was trying to bring clarity to the issue and all he could do was say "garbage in, garbage out."

What a crock.

Yet he withheld the data from the Zager/Denys meetings for 9 months after it was accumulated and added in extensive commentary.

dude...

It took a while to find the time and the way to collect all the data and sort it in a reasonable way. When I did, I made this spreadsheet.

Mr. Higgins, please reply in the Snow thread about how you are using you shovel for snow, not digging yourself a bigger hole.

-1

What I am going to say applies to any readers who can calculate arithmetic means.

Otherwise, please ignore. You are just wasting our time.

http://www.boarddocs.com/il/naperville203/Board.nsf/files/8B3LGG5617D3/$file/Memo+2010+tax+levy.pdf

Here is a document which can be the basis for tax levy discussion.

Please notice that there are TWO parts to the property tax bill.

ONE: PTEL associated max levy increase = CPI. There is nothing to suggest that will be any less than 2.7% in the upcoming year. Yes. That's what I said.

DSL: Debt service levy. A FIXED amount of collections which was abated in 2008, but not last year, to pay for bond interest and principal on the 2008-referendum bonds. .. NOT included in the calculations of ONE.

Someone on this board seems to be proposing that the board is considering BOTH not collecting DSL and giving us money back? Or do you thinkhe is saying the board is considering not collecting DSL.

Note that with DSL involved, EVERY YEAR D203 can maximally extend the levy under ONE, collect the full amount of DSL and STILL have total property tax collections go up by less than CPI, provided they collected DSL the year prior..

Let T be the PTEL-associated tax levy
DSL as above

Total Collection 1st year = T +DSL
Total Collection 2nd year = (1+CPI)*T + DSL

[(1+CPI)*T + DSL] / (T+DSL) is less than (1+CPI)

On the downside, in years, such as 2009, when the prior year the DSL was not collected in 2008, the average taxpayer in the School District saw a 1.7% increase in School District taxes compared to the prior year despite a CPI of 0.1%.

mathematically
Total Collection 2008 = T
Total Collection 2009 = T(1+CPI) + DSL

[(1+CPI)*T + DSL]/[T] is greater than CPI

So if anyone wishes to discuss taxation increase or change, it should be two parts:

PTEL associated tax which increases at CPI and DSL abated or not. On this you can add in abatements from other sources if you wish.

Otherwise there will be some years where it seems as if D203 is increasing homeowner taxes in excess of CPI and others where it will seem as if D203 is cutting the taxpayer a break by not increasing taxes as much as CPI.

Maybe the Sun and Dave Zager can make this clear.

http://www.boarddocs.com/il/naperville203/Board.nsf/files/8B3SA76C11C7/$file/Facilities+Project+Report.pdf

Discusses the facilities project. Again, the Cantera TIF AR not being needed is a function of ongoing 2002- over-collections.

I hope the math-impaired poster stops talking about total bond interest savings. I think he should ask Dave Z if that is worth talking about by itself. It is not. It shows his lack of understanding of opportunity cost AND lack of understanding of present value.

None of my above argument agrees with the adding of extra property value which does not increase burden on the district outside the property value base for PTEL. Legal,certainly. But non-cost producing additional property should be used to lower tax bills by spreading out the burden, not to increase total collections. My opinion.

-1

Mr. Higgins,

Please explain how the district proposes to abate.

The district IS increasing the non-2008 referendum levy by 2.7%.

Go through the taxation and show what you are talking about.

You really need to separate out the different pieces to understand.

You are not doing that.

Truly.

Go through and say exactly what is increasing by what percentage.

-1

You are supposed to be unhappy Mr. Higgins, because you bought the union line hook, line and sinker, along with your other democrat cronies. IF WE HAD LISTENED to the taxpayers ticket, we wouldn't be facing more deficit spending, our property taxes would be much lower, and WE WOULDN'T have to worry about laying off teachers, or cutting programs. I DO NOT CARE ABOUT other school districts. That is the old canard all you union hacks use to play off each other to justify higher pay than you deserve.

Face it Mr. Higgins, your position is running this district into a deeper and deeper hole. Real estate is NOT going to turn around any time soon and the only way out of this now is either layoffs, or salary cuts.

WHY THIS IS CONFUSING

Another Higginism from January 31, 2011 8:35 AM

Comment about 7.2% Teacher Salary Increase by TT and -1 (and others)

“The problem with both is, it is not the total population, it only counts teachers employed continuously between these specific years It’s useful if you want to return a higher percentage raise to bash teachers with, but again, it only tells a portion of the story at best. Same with -1's latest "average raise" calculation that lacks financial relevance, is it the best statistic to help readers understand salary increases/raises? No, I don't think so.”

QUESTION. How do you calculate the salary increase for a first year teacher (in the first year)?

ANSWER. You can’t. That employee did not have an increase. It wasn’t because the school district was fiscally responsible, it just does not exist. Otherwise, the increase is INFINTE (or 100% as a proxy).

QUESTION. How do you calculate the salary increase for a teacher who left at the end of the last year?

ANSWER. You can’t. Unless, of course, you want to understate the increase in salaries.

WHAT IS HIGGINS SAYING?

Who knows!! REALLY. I have no idea on what he is trying to say. He says it is wrong, but the only reason is that the results “bash teachers.” And despite some apparent shortcomings of Dave Zager’s calculation (wait for the next Higgins post, I am bashing Dave!!), his number was within 0.5% (HALF OF A PERCENT) of these calculations. As you see from -1 discussions with Dave, Dave might have not included some of the salary increases for select teachers. But no matter, Dave’s number was close to -1 and mine, double than the number Higgins spews. So Dave and us are essentially on the same page. Also, Dave does not want to address 1999 to 2006. But if our methodology is close for 2006 to 2009, it should be close for the other period as well.

QUESTION Where is Thom’s calculation?

ANSWER It does not exist. OK Thom, you are a genius. Show us the correct way to do it. Notice he criticizes everyone’s detailed calculation, but does not do one himself. He did that to me two years ago and disappeared for nine months when he was ZOWIE WRONG. He is sniping again. The union will probably kidnap him again so he does not screw up their elections.

WHY IS THIS SO CONFUSING

JQ Public, you are wrong. There is substantial amount of information. Dave Zager, -1, myself and other TT analysts have sorted and summarized the information. We even addressed ALL of the problems identified with other sources such as the Champions. We are all within a half of a percent.

The outcome is simple. Teachers who remain with the District have enjoyed salary increases at least two times wage inflation and ECI-W over the last ten years with no promotion or increased responsibility (unless they took on additional extra duties). Use the following numbers Thom has posted:

Individual teacher increase……….10%
Average teacher increase………….6.5%
Increase in salary expense…………3.5%

The threshold question. If teacher salaries increased by 3.5% instead of 6.5%, then our tax increases could have been reduced by the 3%. (Remember, taxes have increased by 6.9% over the past years, not all of it was used for these generous salary increases. The District went from a $20 million deficit to a $40 million surplus--$20 million more than minimum funding.)

So when the District feels compelled to TAX TO THE MAX, they do so at the direction of the union that elected all but one of the members to protect these salary increases. Remember that when you pay an extra $750 in school taxes.

WHAT AM I MISSING?

Here is another classic Higginism.

“While I’m pleased that Mr. Denys has dropped his spurious 8.5%-9% raise claim, he is seriously mistaken if he thinks the analysis the Taxpayer’s Ticket performed here, has any relationship with what -1 did. The Taxpayer Ticket analysis was only for teachers employed in 2000 through 2006. They then averaged the difference in total salaries to find their 7.2%.”

1. Thom has yet to post where I made the “spurious” claim. Again, the quotes he provided were HIS. Thom, where is the quote?

2. “No relationship” to -1 schedule. Hmmmm. We calculated 7.2%. -1 calculated 7.0% or 7.3%, depending which method you use. The key is that both of us used a “W-2 File” supplied by District 203 to calculate an actual increase in salaries for teachers that remained in the District. Both concepts eliminate salary increases resulting from more teachers. Both methods eliminate the impact of turnover.

And everyone except Thom and the Teachers Union view this as the way to evaluate salary increases. Do you go to your boss and say deduct the savings your company realized by laying off employees? Of course not. But that is what Thom is trying to propose. If you eliminate higher paid salaries, you give larger increases to those who remain behind.

The cruel fact in the private sector is that higher paid employees are being let go and replaced with lower paid salaries without any adjustment to compensation of those left behind. I hear Obama say that all the time, the middle class has not received a salary increase.

But even if -1 and the Taxpayer Ticket analysts calculate the increase differently, it is still in the 7% range, not 3.54%.

One word.

ZOWIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A couple of classic Higginisms

From January 28, 2011 11:45 PM
“For those D203 taxpayers reading this: you can have your taxes go up 2.7% or you can have them go up 1.1%. Which do you prefer?”

How about none of the above? Please note that spending is only increasing by 1% or less (per Thom Higgins). In prior years, the spending went down. So the District needs to increase taxes for operations by only 1%.

Now if the District increased its operating levy by 1%, how much would the typical taxpayer bill increase? MINUS 1.5%. That is not a typo, the extra money from Cantera (that is no longer needed to pay off debt for the construction program that was funded from the overcollection of the last ten years) would allow everyone’s tax bill to go down.

DOWN!!!!! So why not target a zero increase for the typical taxpayer? They can abate more than the Navistar TIF and the debt service levy. These are just covering up the real issue.

The answer, in the spirit of Obama and Quinn, the current tax and spend school board has to raise taxes to the MAX. They interpret a TAX CAP as a TAX MINIMUM.

And who is out there beating the drum for this tax and spend…O Thommy Boy!!!!

From January 23, 2011 12:20 AM
DOLLARS VS. DEBATING POINTS

Here are a couple of dollars to think about.

In 2001, a typical $300,000 house paid $3,528 in taxes to District 203. The referendum said that the increase in 2002 would be $511. Well, a little misleading. The increase was to be $631 because you had to increase the inflation factor to the amount.

The vote passed. OK, majority rules. But instead of our tax bills going up by CPI in the following years, the increases were far larger. What was going on?

THE OVERCOLLECTION.

So here are some numbers to think about (taxes by year of collection).

2001 Taxes………………..……….....$3,528
2011 Taxes without referendum……..$4,540 (2.9% increase)
Expected 2011 Taxes with “$511”……$5,217 (4.8% increase)
Actual 2011 Taxes……………………$5,960 (6.9% increase)

A summary of the numbers can be found as follows:

http://www.mediafire.com/?6nifc16kt8qldx9

So everyone is paying $743 more in 2011 than was advertised. Now I don’t think Thom Higgins was involved in the referendum, but he steadfastly defends the over collection. And he wants us to feel good that he district is thinking about giving us $90 back?

Is he insane or trying to mislead us? These are the only two plausible answers.

Thom,

Truthfully it is you who doesn't understand basic math concepts.

Anyone who has access to the total financials could easily calculate the number. It is not at all hard or difficult. Anyone who thinks calculating the average pay raise for a few hundred employees in one school district should never use the words financial analyst in the same sentence with their own name. An independent, outside auditor would be glad to take an assignment to come up with an answer to this relatively simple question and could have done it in far less time than this question has been argued in this thread.

What is hard or difficult is getting people like you to agree on which numbers to use and how to calculate the answers. Especially when people like you start playing games with the numbers and cherry picking which ones they want to use and why. If you weren't so extremely polarizing on this issue there might be some cause or reason to give you more credibility. As it is your credibility stinks.

And since you haven't been any more forthcoming in proving the exact detail of how you derived your answers and conclusions there is as much of a possibility that your answers and conclusion are just as wrong as anyone else's.

So much sleight of hand has been played beating around the bushes on this question I'm just skeptical enough to wager that the true number is going to end up being proven to be higher than any number you are willing to calculate. And I'm sure you have already written your excuse for when that happens to say you accidentally made a stupid, boneheaded mistake.

Well, we already knew you were boneheaded and we see you are working overhead to confirm the rest.

Tonight’s thoughts:

It would be nice if -1 actually included my complete sentence, if not the complete quote: “I doubt there will be a handful of Districts that abate, or don’t levy the maximum 2.7% this spring, especially as last year levy’s were flat. Readers will note that I was referring to the CPI increase for Operating Levy’s. Last year’s Operating Levy increase was .1% for all Districts covered by the Tax Cap, meaning that existing property owner’s Operating Levy taxes were flat (in aggregate) last year for all Districts covered by the Tax Cap (some downstate Districts are not part of the Tax Cap I believe). This has nothing to do with a districts Debt Service Levy.

Let’s take a bit of a global look at D203 expenses and property tax revenues since 2002, since -1 is so caught up with the 2002 referendum. If we take into consideration the results of the 2002 referendum and subsequent Operating Levy increases, the results of the 2008 facilities referendum and Debt Service Levy's, and the expiration of the Cantera TIF, what do we find?

D203’s OEPP has averaged 1% over the state average since 2002, and a bit over 99% of the state average since 1991. Compare that to the 5 districts whose students achieve higher ACT scores who spend, year after year, certainly 30% and probably 35% to 40% more than the state average. Are there any districts whose students score higher on their ACT’s but the district spends less than D203? Certainly not in the Chicago suburbs, and I doubt there is one downstate either. Are there numerous districts that spend more than D203 but whose students don’t achieve the same kind of ACT scores? Yes, many. My fav. is Lisle 202, spending 45%-50% over the state average while they unperformed D203 students by 3 full points on the ACT. But I'm not supposed to mention Lisle because they are a small district. Try telling that to a prospective college or employer and see how far it goes.

From a financial standpoint what has happened since the implementation of the 2002 referendum?

The district has enjoyed balanced budgets and continues to move the time line for balanced budgets out into the future. D203 currently projects them to be balanced out to 2015-2016. I fully expect that time frame to continue to move out as time goes on.

Utilizing $25M in operating funds, the District avoided bonding that amount, resulting in a savings of approx. $10M in interest costs that bonding the $25M would have incurred.

Similarly, this spring, the District decided to use operating funds for $32M in facilities re-constriction costs, (saving approx. $12.5M in interest costs from not issuing bonds), as opposed to issuing $36M in Tax Anticipation Bonds as was previously planned. The District will use the expiring Cantera TIF revenue stream to replenish the operating fund.

The District abated the 2008 Debt Service levy of $3M

The District is again discussing abating this year’s (2010) Debt Service Levy.

I seems every week there is another newspaper article about various Districts that are in deficit, laying off teachers, or cutting programs and extracurricular activities. Some of them spend more than D203 and yet are in deficit, so please someone, tell me why I’m supposed to be unhappy?

Thom Higgins
QE203.org

...and yet qe203 ignores the data from Indiane University, that was in the WSJ, that shows that there is a DECREASE on property values for every $1000 in property taxes!

Gosh, guys ---- are you opinion shopping over at qe203?

To think that -1's averages are financially irrelevent is idiocy.

I have followed this discussion for months now on both this, and other, threads.

Thne ONLY way to view true AVERAGE RAISES PER EMPLOYEE is to look at consistent populations. Doing otherwise is ignorant of the simplest concepts of mathematics.

To try and dilute or obfiscate true data with turnover stats is either misleading or lying.
Why? Because the whole freaking point of the argument is to determine exactly what the raises are that we have been giving individual teachers! It has nothing to do with trying to "...return a higher percentage raise to bash teachers with.." and EVERYTHING to do with trying to actually understand reality.

Am I clear or do I need to take a few thousand words to show how TH doesn't understand basic math concepts?

Ok, so let me get this straight Thom. If incumbent teachers (around 900 or so) go raises of 7.2% from 2000-2006 you are claiming the district would not have saved any money if we had cut their salary increases back to say 3.5-4%!!! That is nuts. That's what 203 should have done and we wouldn't be looking at constant tax increases and continued deficit spending. The majority of this board (run by arrogant Suzyn Price) has driven this district into a hole of their own making. Now they want to keep on soaking the taxpayers to bail them out. Enough is enough.

Mr. Higgins,

Let me make this simple.

Please find somewhere, in this blog (all threads allowed) where someone proposed a different mathematical definition of AVERAGE RAISE than I did back in March 2009.

Please link all posts where someone (other than you) felt the formula was wrong.

Please link to all mathematical formulas you used to suggest something else.

Happy hunting.

Please understand that Mr. Zager does not disagree with my formulas for column C.

Note that it is INDIVIDUAL salaries which undergo transformation via base, step, lane, and other minor increases. What do you know. The raw data can be seen on my spreadsheet. We can then AVERAGE the percent transformation each undergoes to get...AVERAGE RAISE.

-1

Oops...I got Higgins-ed again...

You are doing a nice job of distracting people from your lack of knowledge and skills.

I am impressed. Nice work.

Has -1 addressed the fact that his calculation of “average raise” lacks financial relevance

It only lacks financial relevance if you deny your Zowie moment, or someone does not care to compare their raises to that which the teachers (who were already 20% above state average in 1999) have received.

That seems to be of interest to many people. It also represents a career picture of raises for a relatively stable teacher population. Trust me, this is too deep of a concept for you to get your head around.

You see there was once this guy named Thom Higgins who went Zowie when he calculated what 7% raises did to a specific teacher's salary. Not increase in average incumbent salary. Actual full-blooded raises.

Wasn't that you?

If you want me to link ALL of the times before or after January 23 that I addressed the difference between increase in average incumbent salary and AVERAGE RAISE (which was what we were discussing before, let the record show), I am happy to. To claim I have ignored a request to do so is ludicrous..no strike that... it is very Higgins-esque.

I am happy to respond to anyone else's request for clarification, but not from someone who cannot read my posts and makes spurious claims.
.
.
.
And now Mr. Higgins is pulling out the "continuously employed " crap again for my 2003-2008 analysis.

Wasn't your Zowie moment a continuously employed person?

My 2003-2008 analysis DONE BECAUSE YOU WERE STILL CONVINCED THE AVERAGE RAISE WAS 3.54% Can you deny that? No you cannot.

Your response...garbage in garbage out. Maybe you were talking about your own ability to read and analyze.

I rejected the top raises. By choosing 2008-2003 I avoided the 20% spikers. And nowhere did I guarantee the people were employed continuously. I stated that before, and you tried to make a big deal that they were, and I refuted it then. You might find try to get some real ammo against me.

In fact, at that time, there were ZERO complaints about my methodology from you other than claiming the data was flawed. Why the change? What happened? I have posted my methodology to be as open as possible. I have spreadsheets with the formulas on them. I see no bias.

What is the transparency of your sheet?

Oh yeah...there is none.

Dave Zager is not even fully sure how he calculated LINE1. But it can be done from my Salary Quiz. Why is that?

There is no intent to bash anyone. I apologize to any classroom teacher who feels that way.
.
.
.
If you really want to get into a math argument...bad idea.

One of us created an entire interactive spreadsheet whereby you can calculate increase in average incumbent salary and average raise (as defined over two years ago on these blogs) by applying filters to the data of FULL TIME certified staff who taught 9 months and are not administrators in the years 1999 through 2009.

One of us does not even know what an arithmetic mean is.

This is not much of a discussion.
.
.
.
It gets better. I checked the state Freedom of Information FAQ put out by Lisa Madigan.

Anonymous requests for information must be granted.

I am looking forward to reading all of the emails you had with Mr. Zager and what he actually had highlighted and italicized in the sheet you keep linking to. I am sure the methodology is well described and the data which went into the calculations will be flowing freely.

-1

A few brief observations:

On Jan 23rd. I posted my Dollars vs. Debating Points comment, discussing the fact that -1’s Column C (“average raise”) lacks financial relevance. I re-stated that argument on the 29th.

Has -1 addressed the fact that his calculation of “average raise” lacks financial relevance?

NO.

.

I’ll also ask readers to re-visit the Taxpayer’s Ticket 7.2% claim. This analysis only takes into consideration teachers employed continuously between 2000 and 2006. In the same vein -1 last year jumped onto this bandwagon and did an analysis that returned 7% (approx - this from memory) that only contained teachers employed continuously between 2003 and 2008 (as I remember).

The problem with both is, it is not the total population, it only counts teachers employed continiously between these specific years It’s useful if you want to return a higher percentage raise to bash teachers with, but again, it only tells a portion of the story at best. Same with -1's latest "average raise" calculation that lacks financial relevance, is it the the best statistic to help readers understand salary increases/raises? No, I don't think so.

Should I now spend a few thousand words talking about how –1 doesn’t understand basic math concepts?

Off to work.

Thom Higgins

QE203.org

especially as last year levy’s were flat.

Uhhh....

from the 2010-2011 budget:

The 2009 tax levy, paid in 2010, resulted in an average increase for taxpayers of 1.7%-- solely due to paying the debt service of bonds authorized by the (2008) referendum.

So..did the levy go up or stay flat? Or do I have the wrong document? My tax bill seems to correlate with what the budget says.

I will have plenty to say abut Mr. Higgins' selective use of PTEL law and the 2008 Debt Service Levy in calculating increase in tax bill.

There are parlor tricks going on with his words even though he probably doesn't even realize it.

I'm starting to feel sorry for the guy.

-1

-1 seems to be forgetting that the fiscal years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 had ended, allowing Dave Zager to utilize the final salaries to calculate the percentages for those years. When -1 talks about Dave making adjustments for retirees I’m thinking that was for the estimates for 2008-2009 and probably 2009-2010 as well.

Uh...no. I did not forget anything.

I just happen to know what the chart is trying to show, unlike you.

Let me make a suggestion I made about 6 weeks ago (and 8 weeks and 4 weeks and 2 weeks and 10 months. ) Why don't YOU ask Mr. Zager how he calculated LINE1.

You can review the materials from January 4th if you'd like.

For the gazillionth time, he MUST include a theoretical raise for retirees EVEN IN YEARS WHERE HE HAS ACTUALS if LINE2 is to have any meaning. He said as much to me in our conversation. Maybe he didn't actually do that, but for LINE2 to have any meaning ("savings due to turnover") he must calculate what payroll WOULD have been had everyone stayed. Otherwise LINE1 is based on, say 1200 people (and is essentially my column B)and LINE3 is based on 1300 people.

Why I am trying to explain this concept to someone who does not know what an ARITHMETIC MEAN is...is..I'll say it myself...beyond the pale.

I now understand why Mr. Higgins never took my questions to Dave Zager before. He doesn't understand them.
.
.
.
I think the taxpayers ticket failed because they got too huffy about a textbook. Angry conservatives don't play well with the soccer moms.

I'm not trying to take over the school board.

I am trying to talk truth.

Do you or do you not believe D203 has and continues to have over-collections from the implementation of the 2002 referendum?

If not, then you are delusional and speaking against all evidence from D203 itself.

If so, then there is no reason to celebrate when D203 does not levy as much as was authorized for the 2008 referendum since it has already collected the money needed for the 2008 referendum payment in 2002 referendum over-collections. Whether you understand or not is irrelevant.

What matters is that Mitrovich and Zager get it. By suggesting abatement, they do get it. Otherwise, they'd keep padding the reserves needlessly.

Don't throw a party claiming the board is saving us money.

And please.. stop talking about Lisle. Your NAHC hat is showing.

-1

Actually, the problem of salaries is worse then anyone can imagine.

First problem: inflation, second medical and dental insurance costs, third pension contributions. Medical, dental, and pension contributions are all part of the salary package.

If school districts had to cover pension payouts, they would be bankrupt. But school districts are able to pass this cost on to the state, and the ultimate payer of all school salaries, proprty owners and income tax payers.

For Anonymous’ comments of Jan 29th @5:56pm

Sorry, this link should work:

Taxpayer’s Ticket 7.2% claim
As to you comment of: ” It still cracks me up that you think our property values are high because of your schools.” I’ll just refer readers to a piece on the QE203.org's webpage that that has articles from the Wall St. Journal, the St. Louis Fed, the New York Times and a local real estate broker: Good Schools Mean High Property Values

A few other comments:

-1 seems to be forgetting that the fiscal years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 had ended, allowing Dave Zager to utilize the final salaries to calculate the percentages for those years. When -1 talks about Dave making adjustments for retirees I’m thinking that was for the estimates for 2008-2009 and probably 2009-2010 as well. Regardless, Dave didn’t feel that the yearend numbers would be significantly different. So I’m not sure what the angst is about. When Dave does them (as fiscal years 08-09 and 09-10 have ended), we’ll know. I’ll also mention a comment Dave made to me about his calculations, and the ISBE numbers. Dave is using “certified Staff” meaning all teachers and staff such as, social workers, psychologists, speech therapists, etc. call it 1300+ people. Dave believes that the ISBE is counting only teachers, which drops that number to say 1,100 or so. From that alone there can be some slight variances. Dave isn’t entirely sure how they arrive at their average salary calculation.

I’ll also use this opportunity to plug my What is the best Educational Value in Chicagoland ? Readers might find it off interest to see how much less D203 spends compared to the 5 school districts whose students achieve higher ACT scores. D203 has averaged right around the state average (OEPP) for 20 years. There are a multitude of Districts that spend way more than D203 and yet their children do not achieve the same ACT scores D203 students do, Lisle 202 next door being the most extreme example. They spend 49% more than 203 does; think about that for a moment, 49%. Yes they are a small district, it’s no excuse. Want more? How about Barrington, Wheaton Warrenville, Geneva, Elmhurst, St. Charles, Downers Grove? All of them spend more than D203 and yet their students do not achieve the same ACT scores D203 students do. There are countless other suburban districts that spend more as well, I’m just too lazy to calculate every one. So someone tell me, I’m supposed to be unhappy why?

I think it’s pretty clear that for -1, nothing the District does to minimize taxes on D203 residents will be acceptable absent some kind of permanent abatement (reduction) in property taxes. I’ll offer the opinion that the chance of that happening is, zero. Why? Because people understand that when you compare the amount D203 spends to other comparable suburban school districts, especially when you consider the academic achievement of its students, D203 is more than doing its job keeping down costs. If D203 abates, as a D203 taxpayer you will be in elite company; I doubt there will be a handful of Districts that abate, or don’t levy the maximum 2.7% this spring, especially as last year levy’s were flat. I wouldn’t be surprised if D203 is the only one in the state that doesn’t levy the maximum.

The Taxpayer’s Ticket tried to take over the SB on an over-taxation platform in 2007, they failed. Six years after the 2002 referendum the District asked for the voters to approve a facilities referendum. It passed handily, a feat not unnoticed by the Sun who had a blog thread called “D203 referendum in select company.” So, while -1 and a few others may feel one way, fortunately the overwhelming majority of voters don’t, and I suspect they appreciate that the district is exploring abating for the 2010 levy (payable in 2011)

Thom Higgins

QE203.org

As I illustrated in my Dollars vs. Debating Points post if -1’s calculation is higher than the arithmetic mean (6.4%) then all it means is, individually, the teachers with lower salaries are receiving a higher percentage increase vis-a vis higher paid teachers

hahaha

Let's see, I posted several times WAY above to explain why AVERAGE RAISE is higher than INCREASE IN AVERAGE INCUMBENT SALARY in my analysis. He ignored it and attacked me.

Now he comes out and tries to illustrate something, and he doesn't know what he is talking about.

The 6.4% (line 1) is NOT an arithmetic mean.

LINE1 is a RATIO of arithmetic means (the numerator of which is theoretical with projected salaries for retirees).

Average Raise for a year (column C) is an arithmetic mean of individual ratios. I also calculated the geometric mean of these ratios as mentioned above.

And it is actually the dead-enders --teachers at the last step, which cause the INCREASE IN AVERAGE INCUMBENT SALARY to be smaller than the AVERAGE RAISE.

Even better is that you cannot use LINE1 to calculate any costs. Yet Mr. Higgins thinks you can. That's why he has been unable to answer my salary quiz.

If you want to use a number which represents the increase in payroll cost for a group of incumbent teachers, Column B would be a better bet than LINE1, although allowing the MAXUP to be higher might give a more realistic value.

What do you know, an anonymous poster calculated a number of more relevance to Mr. Higgins than Mr. Zager did?

Say it.

Nice functionality, -1.

You are welcome, Mr. Higgins. Any time. It's not AVERAGE RAISE, but it'll do for your question.
.
.
.
AVERAGE RAISE is used for some calculations, like comparing what you, the taxpayer, have been receiving in raises. Mr. Higgins feels that is irrelevant.

Two (or four to Mr. Denys) years later and he still does not get it.

Got Zowie?

-1

Mr. Higgins.

Will you please regale us with your tales of Zowie!

Did average raise matter then? Apparently it did or you would not have been shocked at what happens when an individual teacher gets 7% per year raises as is consistent with my AVERAGE RAISE calculation.

Does it not matter now?

Does it matter than my calculations are based on REAL numbers, while LINE1 is based on theoretical raises? And LINE1 also includes part time teachers. He was unsure what percent raise he gave them. Some part timers do not get steps. Is LINE1 even real? Nope.

Can YOU tell us if LINE1 is an official D203 number or something concocted to make YOU understand why raises were not 3.54%, but closer to 7%?

By the way, where is your calculation for LINE1 in my salary quiz? Still missing. You get an F!

but seems to believe he is the ultimate authority on the subject of teacher raises.

Interesting and wrong. I believe I have a number which was discussed -- AVERAGE RAISE. I believe I have the skill set to better calculate these numbers than you do. I have shown from the beginning I understood the 3.54% number and why it is too high. You showed complete ignorance, thinking it was average raise. You seem to be defending Dave Zager's calculations against mine. Not a concern. The wording is wrong on the sheet.

So let me ask you something. Do you now believe Dave Zager calculated average (incumbent) raise when HE admits he did not?

If not, you owe me an apology for all the times you were asking who to believe, an anonymous poster or Mr. Zager.

Apologize now.

It is irrelevant if YOU think AVERAGE RAISE is an meaningless number. You felt it was relevant when you said Zowie!

You decided to tell me I was wrong without knowing what you were talking about.

Apologize.

Now.

For the record here is one of the first posts with my method. Almost two years ago. No objections about methodology. I posted formulas over and over. No objections.

http://blogs.suburbanchicagonews.com/newsblog/2009/02/you_pick_the_topic.html#comment-77061

Yes, this was a full TWO YEARS AFTER he opposed the taxpayer ticket and their concerns about raises in the 7% range. He thought they were lying.

Dumb.
.
.
Are you asking JQP and every other blogger to disclose him/herself?
.
.
By the way, we'll actually see the truth when the sheet you keep referring to is republished. We'll see if Dave Zager changes descriptions or not..if you let him and if he actually works with your Political Action Committee on it.

That's what qe203.org is isn't it? Not a citizen? A PAC? Does D203 have rules for doing non-official calculations for PACs who come a-callin'? Is the number he calculated available in a FOI request? If it wasn't sitting there from prior administrations, it does not sound like an official number.

What do you think...an update will show up 9 months after the election again?

-1

Short and to the point so Mr. Higgins does not get confused. Full post below.

Mr. Higgins, let me ask you something. Do you believe Dave Zager calculated average raise on LINE1 when HE admits he did not?

If not, you owe me an apology for all the times you were asking who to believe, an anonymous poster or Mr. Zager. I even explained that nobody need choose.

You can call my AVERAGE RAISE number any number of names you wish, but wrong is not one of them.

Please apologize.

This should be easy.

-1

Again, the most accurate illustration of teachers raises can be found at QE203.org’s Overview of Teachers Salary Increases For Fiscal Years 2007-2010

I'm sorry. Can you point to ONE raise listed on that sheet?

I happen to see none.

Mine has about 11,000 raises listed.

You can look by name and year to see actual money earned. You can go to the alpha list and see what happened between 1999 and 2009 for each teacher.

I will try to include some spreadsheets showing base, step and lane for visualization of that part of the raises.

The way I've always thought of it is stacks of yearly (negotiated) payscales.

You reside in a space on one sheet determined by years of teaching and number of classes taken and what year it is.

Each year you go up to the next sheet (base raise -- across the board negotiated percent raise) walk down a space (step for extra year -- percent varies across the contract) and occasionally slide to the next column (lane change for more classes taken- percent varies across the contract). There are some other small factors relating to extra (or less) work not shown on the scale.

Those at the end of the column only climb to the next sheet since there is no step to take. They can still change lanes unless they are in the last column.

-1

First, just got home from the NEF’s Yucks for Youth event at Wentz Hall featuring The Second City. It was very well attended with the first floor full, not sure about the balcony. Excellent performance.

Anyway, a quick observation while it’s on my mind:

The obligatory disclaimer: we continue to talk about the past. This raise discussion only applies to raises for the 07-08 school year and prior.

-1 is spending a lot of time attacking the calculations and descriptive language contained in QE203’org’s org’s Overview of Teachers Salary Increases For Fiscal Years 2007-2010 that’s fine, but as someone who enjoys a good irony, I’m a bit fascinated that -1 is spending so much time criticizing it, all the while ignoring the fact that his method of finding the “average raise” in the spreadsheet he has created returns a result that has no financial relevance. Here’s an example of what I mean:

If we look at the data for the year 2006-2007 in QE203.org’s Overview of Teachers Salary Increases For Fiscal Years 2007-2010 you will see the “average annual increase for an incumbent teacher” (line 1.) is 6.4%. If we look at -1’s “average raise” (column C, assuming you plug in the .8 and 1.2 values) for the same school year it returns 7.02%.

Which one is more relevant to our discussion of teachers raises?

I’m sure that no one will be shocked that I feel that the number supplied by Dave Zager is more relevant. If we had a payroll (wages only) of say $100M for a group of teachers in 2005-2006, what would the payroll cost be for those teachers in 2006-2007 based on the two percentages listed above? Does payroll increase by $6.4M, or does it increase by $7.02M?

The answer is: $6.4M

-1’s “average raise” of 7.02% has no fiscal relevance. It is, as he admits, the “average of the individual increases.” As I illustrated in my Dollars vs. Debating Points post if -1’s calculation is higher than the arithmetic mean (6.4%) then all it means is, individually, the teachers with lower salaries are receiving a higher percentage increase vis-a vis higher paid teachers.You can not use it to find costs. Frankly, from a fairness perspective, I think that’s proper, -1’s number should be higher. If it’s lower then it means, proportionally, too much raise money is going to the higher paid teachers. It can be either, lower or higher than the arithmetic mean and still not influence payroll costs.

In summation: if you care about dollars and not debating points, -1’s number has no financial relevance if we are talking about the cost of the increases/raises. What his number is good for is to help a reader understand the distribution of the raises among the teachers. That’s it.

-1 is entitled to his opinion, but as I repeatedly say, you can believe the information that The Ast. Supt of Finance for D203 provided (fully understanding that it would be posted on QE203.org’s website and referenced in the blogs) for the “Overview of Teacher Salary Increases..”, or you can believe our friend -1, an anonymous poster who won’t even disclose who he is, but seems to believe he is the ultimate authority on the subject of teacher raises.

The choice, needless to say, is yours

Thom Higgins

QE203.org

As I have indicated previously Dave Zager will be helping to update the above mentioned analysis (it is his language that -1 is attacking btw).

I am disagreeing with the language used for LINE1. That is correct.

Since he could not recall how LINE1 was calculated (i.e. what raise he assigned to retirees), it gives me a good sense that it is a number speciifcally created for this document in order to let you, Mr. Higgins, understand how a 7% average raise can coexist with a 3.54% yearly increase in average salary. Furthermore, LINE1 is inherently a non-existent number. It might have some value as a predictor, but even then it is LINE3 prediction that is presented.

Unfortunately, he calculated increase in average (incumbent salary) -- btw not increase in (average incumbent) salary. That's all fine and dandy, but it wasn't what we were talking about.

I do not think he disagrees with the difference between what he calculated and what AVERAGE RAISE is.

For those D203 taxpayers reading this: you can have your taxes go up 2.7% or you can have them go up 1.1%. Which do you prefer?

This goes right along with Mr. Higgins..what word does her use.. oh, yeah..meme about the taxpayer writing a check for 3.5%..ON an average salary which is already 27% above the state average!!.

You see when taxes are being over-collected we have to look at what we are paying. Of course we'd prefer a 1.1% increase to a 2.7% increase. But to pretend that lower increase is due to something fantastic the district is doing is ignorant. It is because there is ongoing over-collections.

I'd prefer a 0% or even a cut. I'd prefer the Cantera TIF property value be rolled into the levy such that taxpayers get a permanent cut and have them charge for the 2008 referendum cost. Better yet, I'd prefer a permanent fix to the 2002 referendum implementation. Since that is not going to be done, the board CAN abate year after year for the 2008 referendum cost.

Just don't tell me the board is saving me any money; they already collected it from me. They will continue to collect more from the 2002 over-collection than they will abate for the 2008 referendum.

What part of the last paragraph is incorrect, I ask.
.
Dave Zagar's number do not agree with the ISBE numbers.
.
Still no answer on the bold and italics in Zager's words.
.
Still no answer on 1995 starting salary.
.
Still no answer on LINE1 from my salary quiz.
.
Still no answer on revisiting your Zowie moment.

-1

Mr Higgins, your link to the Taxpayers Ticket analysis doesn't work. It still cracks me up that you think our property values are high because of your schools.

I will be posting an update to my D203 1999-2009 salary Analysis sometime next week. If anyone has suggestions of what else to include, please tell me.

I did a geometric mean for each year and those are about .08% to .11% lower than the arithmetic means I have on Column C for the .8 to 1.2 filter. I am sure Mr. Higgins does not care, since he inappropriately ridiculed me for bringing it up in the past, but if anyone else cares-- there you have it.

-1

A few thoughts for tonight:

Regarding Mr. Denys claim here: ” Now two previous taxpayer ticket analysts, myself and -1 have done the actual calculations with adjustments to throw out the extremes and the number in all four cases has been 7.2%. In fact, -1 and I have both sent you are spreadsheets.”

Actually, No.

While I’m pleased that Mr. Denys has dropped his spurious 8.5%-9% raise claim, he is seriously mistaken if he thinks the analysis the Taxpayer’s Ticket performed here, has any relationship with what -1 did. The Taxpayer Ticket analysis was only for teachers employed in 2000 through 2006. They then averaged the difference in total salaries to find their 7.2%. They also claimed an average salary of $86,482. vs. $72,071 as reported by the ISBE for 2006. Color me unimpressed. -1 has done a year by year average of the individual raises, a completely different calculation, which I will continue to state has no financial relevance.

Again, the most accurate illustration of teachers raises can be found at QE203.org’s Overview of Teachers Salary Increases For Fiscal Years 2007-2010

As I was posting this I saw -1's latest missive. As I have indicated previously Dave Zager will be helping to update the above mentioned analysis (it is his language that -1 is attacking btw). Regardless, it seems -1's big revelation is Dave doesn't remember off the top of his head how he arrived at his percentages. That hardly means they are incorrect. Regardless, Dave and I have chatted briefly about some revisions and -1's comments. Dave doesn't seem too concerned, so neither am I. Stay tuned as they say.

Lastly, for -1’s continuing obsession with the 2002 referendum, I’ll only bother to offer a comment as it relates to the abatement. For those D203 taxpayers reading this: you can have your taxes go up 2.7% or you can have them go up 1.1%. Which do you prefer?

Thom Higgins

QE203.org

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/01/gov-christie-public-employees-dont-be-angry-first-guy-came-here-a

Here is the video I was referring to in my post above. Gov. Christie and Dan Denys get it, Thom Higgins doesn't.

Governor Christie reminds me of Dan Deny's. The fireman is Thom Higgins. Dan Denys had this nailed years ago and no one listened. Higgins fought him tooth and nail and Higgins lost and LOST BIG.

Higgins, your pie in the sky analysis and over payment of teachers was and is sickening.

Anonymous | January 27, 2011 8:17 AM wrote:

This is only complex because Thom would like it to appear complex and then explain it to everyone the way he wants to sell it. Hog wash. Bloody hog wash.

This is basic math and most high school freshman could calculate these numbers without any of the problems Thom seems to have. Devious adults with their own agenda would love for you to believe that only they are capable of calculating or analyzing the results.

Nope. It may be very simple when you are calculating the raise for one person for one year. It becomes a little more complex, due to compounding, when you are talking about the increase in one persons's salary over a period of years. And it becomes extremely complex when you are doing this for a large, shifting pool of employees over a period of a decade. You can fault Thom for not grasping some of the important particulars earlier on, but that is more likely due to the fundamental complexity of the issue than to any supposed intent on his part to muddy the waters.

Mr. Higgins wrote:

I will offer the opinion that if D203 abates they will potentially be the only school district in Illinois to do so.

I will offer the opinion that D203 is one of the only school districts to receive such a large unanticipated windfall from a property tax implementation which will exist in perpetuity, thus allowing the abatement.

If you believe Mrs. Crotty and the theoretical referendum with a theoretical bond "savings", please call the $43M referendum a $64M referendum since there is interest to pay on the $43M bonds.

The bottom line to all this is D203 can, under the Tax Cap law, increase the operating Levy by 2.7% and keep the Debt Service Levy intact.

But..but..but..D203 is not planning on increasing the total tax levy by only 2.7%. Is it? It is using over-collection from 2002 referendum so as not to issue Cantera TIF anticipation bonds but it is still absorbing the Cantera TIF money into the total tax levy instead of using that new property to give us permanent relief.
.
.
.
Eleven days later and you still cannot figure LINE1 from my salary quiz?.

Why is it that you defend LINE1, yet have no idea of how it is calculated?

Pretty suspicious.

-1

A few comments on property taxes:

D203 tax increases are governed by the PETL law, better known as the Tax Cap law. This law limits operating levy increases to CPI or 5%, whichever is less. For the 2010 tax levy the limiting CPI is 2.7%. The District cannot increase your property tax bill more than 2.7% (in aggregate)

Additionally, by voting to approve the facilities referendum we authorized the District to increase our taxes to pay off $43M in bonds. The Debt Service Levy to pay off those bonds is approx $3M annually.

For the 2010 levy there are two possible abatements being proposed, a $440,000 abatement due to the Navistar TIF and an abatement of the remainder of the Debt Service Levy.

Navistar TIF:

The reduction to the Debt Service Levy in the amount of $440,000 is a voluntary action on the part of the School Board. There is a recommendation to take this action predicated upon the Village of Lisle finalizing a Bond Abatement ordinance based on the Redevelopment Agreement entered into by Navistar and the Village of Lisle that agrees to distribute a portion of the TIF proceeds each year to the underlying taxing bodies.

The District will have to pass an Abatement Ordinance each year to keep abating this amount. It is logical to do this as long as the TIF distribution is made. The Debt Service Levy will expire when the $43 million bonds are paid off with the 2027 tax levy. Assuming the TIF distribution continues to be made, we will see this abatement through 2027.

The rationale for using the DSL to abate the $440K is it allows the District to reduce taxes without impeding future tax levies. If the District reduced the Operating Levy by the $440K, that would play into the Tax Cap formula for all future years – including any year that there might not be a distribution from the TIF and all the years beyond the TIF dissolution. While it is unlikely that there would not be a distribution from the TIF, it is possible.

Debt Service Levy:

There is also a proposal to abate the remaining Debt Service Levy for 2010, Call it $2.6 million. I suspect this will not be decided until March when the Board has to approve the Levy. The hope is that by them there will be some clarity on Sate funding for the District, and it’s anybody’s guess how Illinois will resolve its education funding issue. I believe the 203 projection is currently based on a 30% reduction in funding (from memory here). If 203 get’s something close to that, I expect them to abate the remaining DSL.

The bottom line to all this is D203 can, under the Tax Cap law, increase the operating Levy by 2.7% and keep the Debt Service Levy intact. This means property tax bills will increase 2.7%. If both abatements are approved, causing the DSL to be abated in its entirety, the result will be a 1.1% increase instead. I will offer the opinion that if D203 abates they will potentially be the only school district in Illinois to do so.

There is also the expiring Cantera TIF which will bring in an additional funds to the District. Initially, 203 targeted those funds to pay off Tax Anticipation Bonds that were to be used to fund part of the facilities effort. The District has now chosen to fund that $36M amount from operating funds, which will save on interest costs. As such the Cantera TIF money will now be used to maintain the operating fund account.

I’ll also note that all 7 SB members including Mr. Weeks and Mr. Dennison have voted for the prior year and this years proposed Tax Levy, as well as, the last two Budgets.

Thom Higgins

QE203.org

What did Thom just say?

I have another thought. Let's compare the salaries and the increases for nurses at Edwards Hospital from 1999 to 2009. Do you think these people received 8% compound increases for doing the same job to an average of $110,000? IF so, then teachers are paid fairly.

A VERY SIMPLE QUESTION. Very comparable value to the community.

And Thom, your guesses are just not called for. Specifically the following:

"My best estimate for historical average increase for an incumbent teacher going back to 94-95 is 6.4%."

For the sixth time, neither you, Dave Zager or Allen Allbus calculated this amount. Instead you "estimated."

Now two previous taxpayer ticket analysts, myself and -1 have done the actual calculations with adjustments to throw out the extremes and the number in all four cases has been 7.2%. In fact, -1 and I have both sent you are spreadsheets.

So either have Dave do the calculation, you do it or the number is 7.2%.

Why do you feel compellled to confuse the community?

So will you now admit that your claim "our real estate values are so great due to our schools" is bogus and not based in reality?

So if we had limited incumbent teacher pay raises for the last 15 years to say 4% annually instead of the 7.2% how much would we have saved taxpayers? If you don't want to use 15 years then use 10 years.

(school report cards)...agreeing with Mr. Higgins

I agree with the following statements from Mr. Higgins's latest post. I am sure not agree with everything he may say about how this or that can be done, but the concepts are not disagreeable.:

• I have repeatedly stated that the existing salary structure of steps and lanes needs to be replaced.
• current contract....had also instituted tougher standards for approving classes to qualify for lane changes
• There are now limits as to how far over in lanes you can move in one year. All this will slow down wage growth.
• the weakness in this system is its uniformity,
• D203 admin and the teachers agreed to form a joint Compensation Review Committee. They have been tasked with revising the compensation structure and I have high hopes they produce a thoughtful document that abandons steps and lanes.
• There have been a lot of comments about how this or that group of teachers doesn’t deserve these kinds of salaries. To me, it’s not about groups, it’s about individual teachers.
• Teaching is not just about test scores, it’s preparing young people to lead productive, self actualizing lives, as adults.
• D203 has PE teachers (who) created nationally recognized “Fit for Life” program. Are these people worth every dime we pay (sic) them even though they are PE teachers? I say yes.
• By this, do I mean every AMPE teacher, or any teacher for that matter, deserves top salaries just for putting in their 22 years and taking all the classes? No, but there are teachers doing amazing things in a wide variety of disciplines, I have no problems with them being well compensated.
• If I was king, the salary structure would allow for a fair level of compensation with a pool of funds to recognize excellence across all grades.
• I’d like to see some discretionary funds available to all teachers of all grades to acknowledge and reward excellence.

clarifications later if needed, but there is some good stuff there.

-1

I will add that he is also wrong on his flippant comment that the raises in the corporate world were a high as those (you know, the real raises of over 7%) thw 203 teachers received.

Not counting promotions, the corporate quietly was WELL behind this number (actually about half).

Again shame on you!

The above past by QE203 is at worst an outright lite, at best intentionally misleading!!!!

LETS BE VERY, VERY CLEAR: the average wage increases per year in 203, for well over a decade, have ben way over 7%!!!

The bogus 3.x% used above is an accounting number which includes the effects of employee turnover, NOT the economic number that measures true individual wealth.

Shame on you, Thom H!

This is only complex because Thom would like it to appear complex and then explain it to everyone the way he wants to sell it. Hog wash. Bloody hog wash.

This is basic math and most high school freshman could calculate these numbers without any of the problems Thom seems to have. Devious adults with their own agenda would love for you to believe that only they are capable of calculating or analyzing the results.

And then let's not discount all of the games adults want to play with which numbers we should use, which numbers we should believe, which method we should use to calculate the result, and then, of course, where the real dirt lies... how some adults interpret what the actual numbers represent.

If some people don't understand this whole mess just points to another symptom of a lack of transparency with how SD203 chooses to conduct business. Calculating a pay raise does not need to be difficult nor does it need to be complex. If the superintendent of finance or the assistant superintendent of finance can not (or will not) explain it themselves and in terms the average tax payer can understand then they should be replaced with someone who is more attuned and sensitive to the needs of the community.

There is no need or role for Thom or the sham QE203 or anyone else to be putting a slant on teacher pay raises. It is what it is and the School Board and the administration should have the decency to stand behind what they approve and explain it to everyones satisfaction.

This responding to an anonymous post on Jan 24th @1:19pm asking: “Why can’t you guys make this simpler to follow for everyone?”

The answer is we can’t as it’s complicated, but here’s my best shot.

I will first recommend that readers carefully read QE203.org’s Overview of Teacher Salary Increases for Fiscal Years 2007-2010 in order to understand the various components that go into teacher’s salaries and raises. I’ll remind readers that the Ast. Supt of Finance supplied the figures and narrative in this document. Notwithstanding comments made here by others, Mr. Zager stands by his calculations contained therein.

Globally, wage growth for D203 certified staff has, over the last 10 years or so, annually increased slightly more than ECI wages. This is the 3.5% figure I talk about and it is the actual cost to the taxpayer for teachers raises Nationally, wage growth was 3.2% so I maintain we are arguing about .3% more or less. So, again, the increase in average salary and the actual additional cost to the taxpayer for teacher’s raises have averaged 3.5% annually.

Raises themselves are another matter, the most accurate data we have is contained in the above referenced document. It tells us that the average increase for an incumbent teacher for 06-07 and 07-08 is say 6.35% (I’m going to average a bit) for 08-09 and 09-10 that drops to 4.8%. The 06-07 and 07-08 percentages include a 3.3% base increase, for 08-09 and 09-10 the base was reduced to 2.0%. The current contract for 10-11thru 12-13 drops that percentage even further to .92%. Base increases from 94-95 (oldest data I can find) to 07-08 have ranged from 3.0% to 4.0%. My best estimate for historical average increase for an incumbent teacher going back to 94-95 is 6.4%.

So, both are true, the 3.5% increase in average salary as well as 6+% raises prior to the 08-09 school year and going back to at least 94-95. And before anyone gets too excited about the previous 6+% raises, I’ll make the comment that people in professional positions experience similar wage growth, as do teachers in other SD’s. If you are in a trade or working retail, no, that’s probably not true, but if we are to attract people who have options and can either teach or work in the public sector we are going to have to pay them a commensurate wage to the private sector.

For the record, -1 does a different calculation, the average of the individual increases. While this metric is helpful to understand the distribution of the raises among the salary range after you have found the arithmetic mean (average), it does not have any financial relevance. The fact that is higher only means the lower paid teachers have a slightly higher raise percentage than the higher paid teachers. That’s all.

Now, I’ll make the heretical statement that I think that real issue isn’t raises per se, but rather is the fact that there is a wide salary range starting at $43,000 and if you work for the district continuously 22 years, and if you take all the continuing ed classes to qualify for a Master + 54 you can top out at $105,000. You can also get additional income from what is called stipends (coaching mostly). My sense is that the criticism is really with these $100K salaries.

I have repeatedly stated that the existing salary structure of steps and lanes needs to be replaced. I will say that the current contract for 2010-2011 through 2012-2013 has reduced the steps for bachelor degrees, and had also instituted tougher standards for approving classes to qualify for lane changes (I told you to read the overview!) Additionally, there are now limits as to how far over in lanes you can move in one year. All this will slow down wage growth. Regardless, from my perspective, the weakness in this system is its uniformity, if you commit to a teaching career at 203 and take all the necessary classes you can end up with a very nice income. Not all do both, but quite a few do.

I should also mention that as part of the last contract, D203 admin and the teachers agreed to form a joint Compensation Review Committee. They have been tasked with revising the compensation structure and I have high hopes they produce a thoughtful document that abandons steps and lanes.

There have been a lot of comments about how this or that group of teachers doesn’t deserve these kinds of salaries. To me, it’s not about groups, it’s about individual teachers. Without getting too specific, I will say that the two teachers that have had the greatest impact on my children are an elementary music teacher and a high school Spanish teacher. Both of them (and others as well to a lesser degree) had/have a very tangible personal connection to my kids. The benefits of that really don’t directly correlate to a higher ACT score, but I will attest to the fact that their efforts have helped my children become more fully formed people first, and better students second. Do I think these teachers are worth their salaries and more? Unconditionally. Teaching is not just about test scores, it’s preparing young people to lead productive, self actualizing lives, as adults.

D203 has PE teachers that created a nationally recognized adaptive PE class for physically challenged students, another created the, again, nationally recognized “Fit for Life” program. Are these people worth every dime we pay them even though they are PE teachers? I say yes. I hear there’s a shop teacher at North that has a grant and is helping students design and build a solar powered vehicle. What’s his worth, he’s just a shop teacher after all, right? By this, do I mean every AMPE teacher, or any teacher for that matter, deserves top salaries just for putting in their 22 years and taking all the classes? No, but there are teachers doing amazing things in a wide variety of disciplines, I have no problems with them being well compensated. Personally, I have been uniformly impressed with the caring and commitment that the teachers my children have had, save perhaps one.

If I was king, the salary structure would allow for a fair level of compensation with a pool of funds to recognize excellence across all grades. My understanding is that, nationally, most teacher salary structures do not differentiate on the basis of what grade you teach, I don't see D203 changing that in any significant way.

What any revised salary program can’t do is pit teachers against each other. Most people don’t realize how much emphasis this district places on teachers working collaboratively, especially as D203 creates so much of its curriculum in house. Teachers play an important role in the development, implementation and review of curriculum. That can’t change, but I’d like to see some discretionary funds available to all teachers of all grades to acknowledge and reward excellence.

Thom Higgins

QE203.org

Could someone explain why getting an abatement does not actually save us money?

Let's be clear on the numbers.

The school district is asking for a 5.2% increase. The increase on typical residents will ONLY be 2.4% if the District growth assumptions are not realized. Dave Zager says they will not be. Does the District get less money? NOOOOOOO.

Taxes can go up 2.7% on typical households. So throw out the 2.4%, replace it with 2.7%. And if commercial properties continue to get additional tax breaks, the increases could approach 3.5% to 4.0%.

And after paying for an "extra" $40 million in capital costs avoiding the need to borrow such funds, the District using their standards has an extra $20 million in the bank.

Why not a 0% increase for the average taxpayer? Limit the increase to the anticipated spending increase (Thom you said that was going to be 1%). That can be funded from the Cantera increase. Maybe everyone will get a tax increase to help pay for the Quinn/Price/Fielden/Jaensch/Crotty/Romberg/Madigan incomce tax increase.

Does that work?

Maybe I have been too abstract.

Mr. Higgins:

If the taxpayers do not have to make the $3.2M payment, how does that payment get made? Has the bond PAYMENT been canceled?

Do you agree or disagree with Mr. Zager: ""The taxpayer will still be paying the interest on these bonds, but it will come out of our overall operating levy rather than an additional levy," Zager said.

-1 who has a mock qe203 spin doctor's office visit in mind to parody the overpayment/savings argument

Too tired to post much tonight, so just one question for -1.

If the District levies the maximum percentage in March my taxes (and everyone else's too) will go up about 2.4%. If they abate the facilities levy (1.5% or so I believe) my/our taxes will go up say .9%,meaning I/we will send less money to the district.

It can go either way, but assuming they abate and I send them a smaller check, how should I and other D203 taxpayers feel about that?

Thom Higgins

QE203.org

Here is an attempt to make this salary issue clearer.

Here is a salary history for a 203 high school teacher.

Fiscal...........................Annual
Year...........Salary......Increase
1999..........54,125
2000,,,,,,,,,,59,600......10.12%
2001,,,,,,,,,,61,341........2.92%
2002,,,,,,,,,,63,359........3.29%
2003..........68,497........8.11%
2004..........86,232.......25.89%
2005..........86,245..........0.02%
2006..........93,714.........8.66%
2007........106,820........13.99%
2008........112,076.........4.92%
2009........112,251..........0.16%

Hmmmm. These numbers look to be substantially above 3.54%. Did we overpay this teacher?

Of course not. The teacher's salary more than doubled over ten years, a compound growth rate of over 8%. Even with the last year at zero (he must not have announced his retirement yet).

Thom, have your children calculate the correct number for you.

And ECI is not an official salary policy of the District. Remember, I HAVE GONE TO THE SCHOOL BOARD AND ASKED THEM WHAT THEIR POLICY WAS. THEY DO NOT HAVE ONE. Susyn Price and Gerry Cassioppi specifically said the taxpayers are not entitled to that information.

And also quote what I have said to the Board. Salary administration is the TOUGHEST task for the Board, for that matter, any employer. Generally, you can never pay an employee enough.

It is always amazing that Thom Higgins is supporting the most extreme left in our community. Does this mean that QE203 is a mouthpiece for the LEFT rather than his “objective watchdog group”? Just asking.

Now some revisionist history from Mr. Higgins. Kermit Eby was a student of William Ayers. During my campaign, he was identified by parents as a teacher that policies needed to be developed. For example, he refused to use the authorized AP History text book and instead forced students to use an unauthorized textbook on American history from a Marxist perspective. And when this issue was brought up by two board members and the superintendent, the issue was swept under the carpet.

So who comes to his defense? Thom Higgins. Anybody seeing a pattern here?

Thom,

Just answer the question. You placed the first comment, attributed to me, that salary increases were 8.5% to 9.0%. Then you ask me to defend the comment. Then you accuse me of making this up.

Go back to the original post. Four HUNDREDS of posts you insist that teachers were only getting 3.5% salary increases. My comment was that it was higher, I recalled scheduldes between 6% and 9%. Then you dropped in the first statement accusing me of saying that the increase was 8.5% to 9.0%. Then comes the taunting and bullying to discredit all of my comments.

In actuality, my original comment was accurate (there were schedules showing annual increases between 6% and 9% (7.2% to be exact and in some years that increase was over 8%). Your assertion of 3.5% was either you not understanding the issue or trying to deceive people.

And you have not answered the question for the fifth time. Other than -1, myself and Taxpayer Ticket analysts, has anyone including you, Dave Zager or Allen Albus calculated the actual increase between 1999 and 2006? Real calculations, not your goofy "estimate".

And in the spirit of Paul Ryan and Michelle Bachman, we need to lay out the real facts. We are in a situation where we cannot support these higher taxes. The average Napervile resident will pay $2,000 more in income taxes, many even more. Why is there such resistence in being reasonable?

http://trs.illinois.gov/subsections/pubs/cafr/fy10/actuarial.pdf

I shudder to think anyone can read this without barfing.

nonetheless, I direct Mr. Higgins to page 84 (4 of 19) and read about..dare I say it..average raise.

I am in pretty sad company. theTRS and I agree on something.

-1

I’m glad to hear from you that the FTN/Champion calculations are wrong as well. It seems you feel you are the only person who knows what they are doing.

Um.. you mean me and Mr. Zager who admits that my analysis actually calculates an AVERAGE RAISE in column C of the D203 1999-2009 Salary Analysis? I'll take a random stab and guess I have a few more skills than you in figuring these things out.

-1 asks:: ”Is there any question right now with the integrity of their data set?” meaning FTN/Champion.

Higgins replies citing Zager from Mr. Higgins' pet chart

So their ANALYSIS is flawed for certain years. And however might we not fall into that trap? I got it. How about a FILTER excluding pay raises over 20% and pay cuts larger than 20%. I have an even better idea. Include ONLY people who have worked 9+months and are listed as 1.0 FTE. Even better, exclude administrators. Wow. Doesn't that sound great? Maybe better we can include a COUNT of people in a certain raise range so we see that, lo and behold, people with pay cuts ARE LISTED and included in the analysis.

Hmm. maybe I did that, so that my spreadsheet can use their data and analyze it correctly.

fwiw, the increase in average raise-receiving incumbent salary calculated by the champion is minimally, and I mean minimally, affected by FTE equivalence. The vast majority of teachers were 1.0FTE and they were making significantly more money than those who changed from part-time to full time status and had those obscenely large appearing percent raises. As such the numerator and denominator get minimally changed when adding in the few big bumpers. It WOULD be more damaging to their cause if they tried to calculate REAL average raise.

Their biggest flaw was to not filter the data in some reasonable way. Trying to make a point, they took things to an extreme leaving them vulnerable to attack. Ignoring FTE equivalence, they calculated increase in total salary cost for incumbents who received a raise. Note that in my analysis, fewer than 1 in 20 of the teachers get a pay cut each year and the VAST majority of those get less than a 10% cut.

.
.
.

Increase in Average Incumbent salary.

First of all, my calculation (column B)does an actual on all included as per the above filters. If LINE2 is to exist, Dave Z's LINE1 is not an actual. Really! Try my quiz and get back to me on how Dave Z calculated LINE1. You still do not have an answer, do you? Clueless you are. Your spreadsheet is looking worse and worse by the day.

When was the last time someone said "I got a 7% raise. I really want to compare that to the increase in average incumbent salary at Business B." Are you kidding me?

And what number would you use in this calculation?

If starting salary is $41,969. and a teacher receives 7% annual raises, at 20 years the salary is $151,782.... Zowie! That, of course, is not the case, not even close. That's why I have problems with these 7%-9% figures being tossed around for raises.

That's right, you'd use AVERAGE RAISE, just like you did before.

Why are you so difficult?
.
.
.

If the district abates, we taxpayers will not have to make this $3.2 million payment.

You are clinically insane. Let me give you the answer.

real quiet

shh

we already paid it

shh

now off to bed for you little thom-thom. the leprachauns will bring you peaceful sleep.

-1

All of our tax bills will be less if they abate. In your mind is this an actual savings to the community or not?

NO

Where did the money come from allowing the abatement?

-1

We cannot support AMPE teachers making more than 100,000 at the grade school level. That's insane. We cannot afford average librarian/media specialist salary of 91K. We cannot have cost increases greater than CPI. we cannot have elementary teachers on the same pay scale as STEM teachers in High School. We cannot afford teachers who cannot or do not teach, regardless of experience.

...and considering that I haven't read all 300+ posts (or anything close to it--who would want to?), wouldn't it be easier to just compare the actual teacher contracts? Isn't that the issue? Whatever the net results are for a given year, the raises are governed by the contract. If you have an issue with remuneration, isn't that the place to start?

How about cutting to the chase: D203 pay scales are in need of reform, what exactly do you think these people should be making? to start? after 25 years? How do you propose that the school district gets there starting from the current pay structure?

What percentage of the teachers do you think "cannot or do not teach?"

Any of you sb rats know what this all about? District 203 school board censures member

-1 make it simpler

First regarding Anonymous’ plea: ” Why can't you guys make this simpler to follow for everyone?”

I feel your pain. I’ll try to post something thoughtful when I can have a few moments. Dan and -1 have made some comments below yours that I’d like to respond to first. Sorry, yours is actually more important to the conversation here. I’ll try to get to it in the next day or two.

Responding to Dan Denys claim that I sucker punched him. Well, I guess. His denying ever making the 8.5%-9% raise claim when I can I find seven examples in one thread, is certainly leading with your chin. Asking me to dig though countless posts to find the ORIGINAL claim seems a little beside the point though, isn’t seven enough?

For -1:

I was at tonight’s school board meeting and can report that the District is, once again, considering abating the facilities levy, which leads me to ask you this: the community voted to approve additional taxes to fund the facilities re-construction project, and additionally, voted to approve the 2002 referendum. If the district abates, we taxpayers will not have to make this $3.2 million payment. All of our tax bills will be less if they abate. In your mind is this an actual savings to the community or not?

I’m glad to hear from you that the FTN/Champion calculations are wrong as well. It seems you feel you are the only person who knows what they are doing.

You ask: ”Is there any question right now with the integrity of their data set?” meaning FTN/Champion.

Only if you don’t have a problem with this: ” I’ll also mention that they (FTN-formerly Champion) do not solve for FTE so you have teachers listed as receiving individual increases as high as 197.5% in the above years. This is simply not true. Because the FTN does not solve for FTE. (full time equivalent) a teacher who works a partial year and then a full year the next, are shown to have received these overly large raises. Additionally, as I have mentioned before, please note that no one with a negative salary is listed. Teachers income can decline year over year if, once again, they do not work a full year. This is very common with teachers who work for a full year and then go out on maternity leave the next (a very common occurrence with a staff that is largely women). Because of these shortcomings the FTN analysis has the average raise/increase as being higher than it really is.”

Personally, I do.

Regarding this comment of yours: ”My AVERAGE RAISE calculation has 100% comparable relevance to EVERYONE who gets a raise from their workplace”

Let’s remember your AVERAGE RAISE is meaningless if we are talking about it having any financial relevance to what a taxpayer spends on teachers’ salaries.Your number could just as well be 3% and the cost to the taxpayer could be the same. Should the taxpayer feel better then? Your calculation is great to use as a comparison to the percentage increase in average incumbent salary, but only to help us understand the distribution of the raises, nothing more. Frankly, I think that the increase in incumbent salary is far more relevant for people to compare to their own raises as it filters out the “noise” of the impact varying salaries has on your calculation.

Lastly, responding to Anonymous’ post of 1-24 @ 1:14pm.

Hey, don’t take my word for it, here is a piece that quotes the WSJ, The St. Louis Fed, the N.Y. Times and a local real estate broker: Good Schools Mean High Property Values

People who own homes in communities with top notch schools have higher home values. If you were looking to buy and had kids, where would you buy? Where the schools are excellent and the budgets balanced, or somewhere where the schools may be good but the budget’s a mess causing the district to lay off teachers and cut programs?

Thom Higgins

QE203.org

Too much to hack apart from Mr. Higgins.

Q: Please explain this part of the savings. ” Abated the first year of the facilities referendum saving the community 3.2 million dollars”.

Higgins Answer: Not much to explain, the decision was made to abate the first years collection of the cost of the reconstruction effort, which runs about $3.2million annually, in order to lessen the tax burden on the community.

And where did this money come from/go.

Just like the disappearing leprechaun, you need to explain HOW this saved any money?

To the wayback machine, perhaps.

"The taxpayer will still be paying the interest on these bonds, but it will come out of our overall operating levy rather than an additional levy," Zager said.

Savings, eh? that's what I thought.

Savings to YOU means any possible tax dollars not collected. Even when the potential collections were already collected in 2002 over-collection. (maybe I'll grant you a savings if you can grant us an excess collection offset...your accounting would still be WAY behind)

It is crystal clear.

Everyone read and reread Mr. Higgins attitude. It showed up before when he claimed that D203 was "lawfully" entitled to collect a certain amount of taxes.

Maybe the money for abatement came from the savings on the health plan. Which was then spent on this. Which lead to another 3M savings, which can be spent on something else.

Hooray, a perpetual motion money machine!! Before you know it, we can spend $103M and save $100M.
.
.

What is your concern with my commenting on the Family Taxpayers Network (FTN)?

No concern. Did I ever have any concern? It's just that using their ANALYSIS as a rebut to my analysis is patently absurd. They also did it wrong. They calculated increase in average incumbent salary for all teachers who got a raise. They did not calculate AVERAGE RAISE. (And if you put in 1 and 2 for MIN and MAX, my column B will be very close to their yearly numbers).

Is there any question right now with the integrity of their data set?

My AVERAGE RAISE calculation has 100% comparable relevance to EVERYONE who gets a raise from their workplace. Otherwise, why did you go Zowie when you found out what 7% raises would do.

So it is agreed. You must add .3% to .5% to your ESTIMATES of increase in average incumbent salary to get AVERAGE RAISE. fair enough. Now apologize.

And revisit your Zowie.
.
.

Back to the savings:

Which is a better deal: A 250K loan at 10 years at 8% or a 250K 30-year loan at 5%. Certainly there is a larger total interest payment in the 2nd loan, so clearly you MUST save money by taking the 1st loan in comparison to the second. Right?

The problem with -1’s argument is it’s wishful thinking. He’s comparing what is, with some kind of alternative reality, but it didn’t happen that way, so for him to claim there is no savings based on a hypothetical alternative lacks credibility.

I'm sorry. Which alternate reality are you discussing. The one where D203 kept the extra $25M sitting around from the 2002 over-collection and then asked for a larger referendum which then passed and additional bonds would have been issued? that one? And then you account for the ENTIRE amount of theoretical interest payments over 20 years as a present value? that one?

Maybe you should call the $43M referendum a $60+M referendum since that will be the sum total of principal and interest payments. Would that be deceptive? Ya sure, you betcha. But it would be consistent with your accounting.
.
.

To Dan D.

I completely agree about FAIR NEGOTIATION. I suspect Mr. Higgins does too. I am glad to hear he wants to ditch the steps/lanes. Master's Degrees have been shown to help in very few circumstances. And then only in subject materiel, not education.

We cannot support AMPE teachers making more than 100,000 at the grade school level. That's insane. We cannot afford average librarian/media specialist salary of 91K. We cannot have cost increases greater than CPI. we cannot have elementary teachers on the same pay scale as STEM teachers in High School. We cannot afford teachers who cannot or do not teach, regardless of experience.

-1

Two comments to Mr. Higgins.

SUCKER PUNCH

Again, where was the ORIGINAL claim by me that salary increases were between 8.5% to 9% in 2000 to 2005? The quote you list that began this issue and serves as the basis of calling me a liar are YOUR COMMENTS. You are correct, you hit me with a SUCKER PUNCH. In all of your ranting and raving, you confused the heck out of everyone, my self included. Instead of a civil debate, you attempt to inflame people like Keith Oberman, Rachel Maddow and Sean Hannity.

And after being drawn into your trap, my later comments were not as accurate. However, I think we all agree the average increase was around 7.2%. Is that number closer to 9% or 3.54%? The rest of my comments, in light of your confrontational style, are still accurate, but could be more precise.

And please confirm to everyone that Dave Zager refuses to complete his worksheet before 2007. And neither you nor Allen Albus have calculated the numbers. Now -1 has done it and in a couple of years, the increases exceed 8%.

Instead of focusing on the specific issues, you attempt to blur them. I think my summary of your comments and the poster Anonymous | January 24, 2011 1:19 PM | have said it correctly. Salary increases of 3.5% would have been more fiscally responsible.

So you can continue to try to create confusion to support excessive government spending. It is purely an attempt to mislead everyone.

CROTTY COMMENT

Thanks for the clarification. Does this mean that the District no longer needs the future $48 million to repay this debt? The taxpayers will finally see tax relief?

Again, all of this is our money. We only see the savings if the District stops overtaxing.

Why can't you guys make this simpler to follow for everyone? Let's see if I have this right. Higgins argues that the salary increases for the last 10 years have been in the 3.5% annual increase range. He says this by stating high salaried teachers retire and the district hires much lower paid teachers to replace them. From what I can tell that part is true.

What -1 is stating is that incumbent teachers have averaged around 7% pay raises over the last 10 years and from his spreadsheet that is true too.

Am I correct so far?

To me the crux of the problem is if incumbent teachers received pay raises closer to 3.5% per year over the last 10 years our taxes would be much lower and we wouldn't have this continuing deficit spending. Giving incumbent teachers annual 7% pay raises is a recipe for disaster.

Mr. Higgins, for years you have been telling all of us on these blogs the reason our property values were so high in Naperville was due to the schools and how great they are. So now that my home has fallen 30% in price since it's peak does that mean the corollary is now true? Please explain. You cannot have it both ways. Why do you dodge my question?

Finally, a coherent comment by Mr. Higgins

"Finally, I’ll offer three percentages: 10%, 6% and 3.5%. You can have an individual teacher receive say a 10% raise in a given year, but the average raise is 6% among incumbent teachers. Taking turnover into account reduces the actual percentage increase to the district and taxpayer to 3.5%. We “write” the check for 3.5%"

And here is the threshhold question.

"What check should the taxpayer have to write?"

Let's look to the private sector. Jewel Food Stores is attempting to regain market share it has lost to Wal Mart and Target. So they lower prices. At the same time, their costs increases. Result, a poor financial quarter. And Wal Mart and Target lowered prices again!!

As consumers, we look for the lowest price. Unfortunately, when we deal with monopolies like the electric company, gas company and GOVERNMENT, we have little or no control. We would like to pay 0%, not 3.54%. In fact, 1 million people have left Illinois for various factors including lower local taxes.

Same for schools. The key question in this blog (and may I note, a difficult question in general) is what is the "fair" salary increase for teachers. Instead of 10%, 6%, 3.54%, should the amounts be 6%, 3.54%, 0%?

In short, the amount that we pay as TAXPAYERS is impacted by the deals given to the teachers, not the other way around. Tax caps are limits, not absolute amounts. The District does not have to tax to the highest level to give teachers the absolutely highest salary increase.

And for those who read my posts, please note that I advocate for a FAIR NEGOTIATION of teachers' salaries. Contrary to Mr. Higgins obsessive comments, myself or Mike or Jerry never advocated for a 20% reduction in salaries. Instead, a FAIR salary (maybe an increase) that result in taxpayers paying a FAIR amount in taxes.

So that leads us to the next question. If the net salary expense of the District is -1.54% (or whatever number Higgins posted here), then why do we need a 4.9% tax increase in 2011? Do we need to replenish reserves? Answer, no. They exceed the District target by $20 million.

We'll see what Mr. Higgins has to say after 300 posts.

Ok, a few rebuttals, I could do more but lack the enthusiasm:

For Dan Deny’s comment of:” Most importantly, where is the specific quote that he attributes to me on the salary increases being 8.5% to 9% in certain years between 2000 and 2007? (Even thought -1 has proved this statement correct.)”

The following SEVEN references are all from Mr. Denys as to his 8.5% to 9% claim in that thread, and, no, -1 hasn’t proven this statement correct. If he can I’ll send that $100 gladly to the NEF.

As to this from Mr. Denys: ” Question. WHERE DID THIS MONEY (SURPLUS) COME FROM? The sky?

Ms. Crotty was discussing the interest savings by not having to bond $36 million of the facilities construction project. Just like the District is saving additional millions in interest by not having to issue Tax Anticipation Bonds for the remaining facilities funding.

For -1:

Your comment of:

Please explain this part of the savings. ” Abated the first year of the facilities referendum saving the community 3.2 million dollars”.

Not much to explain, the decision was made to abate the first years collection of the cost of the reconstruction effort, which runs about $3.2million annually, in order to lessen the tax burden on the community. There has been talk of doing this again if the District admin feels they can accomplish it.

What is your concern with my commenting on the Family Taxpayers Network (FTN)? It’s simply a new name for Thechampion.org. You get your data from these people, so does Mr. Denys.

I note with interest you do not rebut my contention that your 6.9% figure lacks financial relevance. Are you conceding as such?

I’ll also take another stab at -1’s continuing claim that any saving by not bonding some of the facilities reconstruction is ”completely bogus”

Simple fact: The district, by using existing funds avoided having to bond millions in facilities construction costs. That decision will ultimately save tens of millions in interest costs when you combine the initial decision with the latest one not to issue the tax anticipation bonds.

But are there any sayings to the taxpayer? Our friend -1 say’s no!

The problem with -1’s argument is it’s wishful thinking. He’s comparing what is, with some kind of alternative reality, but it didn’t happen that way, so for him to claim there is no savings based on a hypothetical alternative lacks credibility. The voters approved the operating and facilities referendums. The District exercised its best judgment in minimizing costs by bonding as little as possible. The savings is real. If -1 wants to claim otherwise, or claim that Mr. Zager agrees with him, fine, but I’ll happily ask Dave when I see him next if he agrees with -1 that there are “ZERO savings” as -1 claims.

That’s enough for one night. What a way to end the season.

Thom Higgins