I know about the economy, I don’t have rose colored glasses on. My 401K has taken a hit in the 6 figure amount. My son has lost his job as of Christmas so don’t give me your cynical remarks. You asked for some information from someone who knows what is going in D157 and I provided it. What does sales have to do with school income? School income does not come from sales taxes. I’m sure the School Board would have like to not give raised at all, but the teachers will strike and all hell will break loose with parents breathing down the School Board’s neck because the kids are out of school. So you have negotiation experience, I do. I would love for you to try to negotiate a 1 year contract, especially if it has taken over 4 months to negotiation what they just tentatively agreed upon. You asked why the board didn’t start are 2%. How do you know they didn’t? Do you know where the teacher’s started? Maybe they started at 10% and the board negotiated that down to 4%. To some people the board would be praised for that. So, if 4% is to high, what do you think they should have settled at 2%. That’s below the cost of living, no union would agree to that when the revenues and budget is positive. They don’t care about the economy; they look at the District and how strong the education fund is and the future projections. So you think the teaches at D157 are not the cream of the crop. Tell me, what data do you have to support that comment? From what I have read, D157 have made AYP, if you know what that means. Have you looked at the school report card? OK, so the kids do not have shinning grades, but you cannot judge a District or their staff strictly on grades, you need to take into consideration the ability levels too which the school report card does not do. You seem to have an appreciation for the Teachers and the job that have at hand, but don’t disrespect the teachers at D157 saying they are not the cream of the crop unless you have the facts to prove it. I’m sure there are some really good teaches at D157 and not so good teachers. Teachers tenure makes it difficult to have all stellar teachers.
I think I know the problem. I've seen the school report card. It's NOT pretty, and not worthy of a 3 year, 4% per year deal either.
(And sales, sales tax has plenty to do with the School Districts. What happens if River Oaks becomes another Dixie Square?)
Sales tax has nothing to do with the current revenue in D157, the school does not receive sales tax revenues. Now, if the businesses do struggle and stores start to close can River Oaks become another Dixie Square, sure, but I've heard that argument for years. If it does close and the school district looses the property tax income from the shopping center, then the homeowners will have to pay a higher tax to the district if a referendum is presented and passed. If it does not pass, then D157 will start to work in the Red, cuts will be made and D157 will be just like most of the School Districts in the State, working under a budget deficit because the State of Illinois is not doing there share.
So you purely judge our teachers performance base on how D157 scores compared to the State average. Yes, in comparison the numbers do not look good but they are improving year over year. Like I said before, the fair evaluation is to look at abilities of the kids, parental involvement and mobility to name a few. I think a 3 year contract if fair and what is typical for this District and others. 4%, well, it’s what they have received in the past and pretty typical in the area even in Districts working in the Red. They should at least get cost of living plus. As I said, the salaries need to be competitive with other Districts to retain and recruit teachers.