You Get What You Pay For

A few weeks ago I spent some time with you discussing the teacher salary proposal that is currently being debated in the legislature. This is noble work and I encourage the legislature to continue moving this ball down the field, and to do so with as much expediency as possible (while at the same time not forgetting about the SSA rate). Not only are we in the final stages of putting our budget for the next fiscal year together [sans SSA], hiring season has arrived. With growing enrollment, once again positions will be added to our faculty. It sure would be nice to tell them with certainty how much they can expect to earn. 

Indeed, it is somewhat difficult to unpack what are complex compensation proposals and explain them in simplistic terms that are easily understood. Or succinct enough to help those with opposing viewpoints comprehend the long term implications of those ideas without coming across as self-serving. This is most certainly a difficult needle to thread.

Here, those heady arguments have been laid out point by point, but without truly discerning the implications of what those decisions may mean for the students and communities we serve. Think of it this way. Last year when we were beginning the search for our next elementary principal I spent some time with the board considering what the salary range should be by first sharing with them the current metrics for our conference. The average elementary principal in our conference, at that time earned a salary of $97,149 per year. So we settled on a range of $95,000-$105,000. At the same time, I was also clear that we could probably find someone to do this work for $80,000-$85,000. But we had to ask, is that what we want? Remember, this person is expected to lead our elementary school.

Currently we are engaged in a search for our next Tech Director. Naively, I posted that position with a salary range of $45,000-$65,000. After some research and watching the pool develop, I realized that the job description simply did not match the salary range. Let's assume I hire someone for $50,000 and the network goes down. At that point, we don't have a lot of time for on the job training. But the reality is, that's what you get for $50,000.

Teachers are no different. We can hire a teacher right out of college and pay them $33,500, which is the statewide minimum. I'll ask the same question that I asked before. Is this what we want? Remember, this person is expected to teach our students how to read. That is the primary reason why our starting teaching salary is more than $10,000 higher than the statewide minimum. 

But here is the other part of the problem: many young people studying to be teachers are not planning to stay in Iowa. Pay is some of, but not the only reason for this loss of talent. If the legislature can get the base salary to $50,000 for starting teachers, then I would opine we've won half the battle. (Mind you, I'm skeptical this is even realistic; particularly considering counter proposals from the Senate and House are $46,251 and $47,000 respectively.) 

The other 'half of the battle' so to speak is to make certain these young professionals feel value beyond the paycheck. They need the support of supplemental and auxiliary services that organizations like the AEA can provide. The autonomy to make decisions in their classrooms without fear of reprisal. A voice at the table. I could go on, but you get the point, right? 

Stay in Your Lane

We have reached the first important benchmark in the legislative session. In order for bills to remain under consideration, they must have cleared through a full committee in the chamber of origin. That's why last week we saw a flurry of activity as subcommittees met to consider whether or not to advance legislation on to the full committee. Those committees met multiple times, often with lengthy agendas in order to get their bills through this funnel. Though a bill may have survived the funnel, it is a long way from becoming law. The next step is debate and passage on the floor of the chamber before being transmitted to the other chamber where the process starts all over. An additional funnel will occur a four weeks from now which requires legislation to be through committee in the opposing chamber. This is designed to set up final debate and passage of a piece of legislation before it heads to the governor for approval or veto. Now that we are through the first hurdle, I think we can begin to take stock of where we are and what the real priorities of this session might be. 

First, it is readily apparent that the AEA overhaul bill is not going away. From the governor's proposal, we saw an amendment offered that was advanced in the Senate but subsequently stalled in the House. Both chambers are struggling with these proposals because they are incredibly unpopular. Even so, there is a lot of pressure to get something done. My supposition is that is why we saw two competing proposals from each chamber this week clear their respective committees. Neither one is good, but it does appear that our legislators are continuing to have discussions and agree that further work is needed before these bills are ready to advance. The House Bill is slightly better, but I might suggest stripping everything out of it except the portion that discusses convening a task force to study all parts of the AEA.

One of the greatest flaws in both versions of the bill[s] continues to be a concentration of authority to the Iowa Department of Education (DE). Have you ever heard the quote, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'? It's from a speech Ronald Regan gave in 1986 where he argued that government tends to be inefficient and that instead of helping, it actually makes things worse. I would opine that what we have here is a textbook example of that very idea. To be honest, I don't have a lot of confidence in the DE and would submit I'm not alone in those sentiments. It's fair to say there is a real trust issue at play here.

Unfortunately, proposals to consolidate power with the DE is not isolated to just these proposals. For example, legislation is being discussed that would mandate specific reading methodology in instruction, AKA the science of reading. The proposal offers scant details into what exactly this means. Are we talking about phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension? If so those components are already part of the instructional practice deployed by our faculty. Is it instead about a specific program? If so, which one and why?

About that. This fall the DE announced a partnership with Lexia Learning to provide professional development at no cost to K-5 teachers and administrators. Now, the training is good. In fact we have a small cadre of teachers engaged in this training right now-through the AEA. (More on that in a minute.) The trouble with the DE offering is that schools need to fit into their 'one size fits all' model. To do so would mean rewriting the academic calendar and adding full days of professional learning to our schedule. Additionally, we would need to figure out what to do with more than half the faculty who wouldn't be otherwise be engaged with this learning. Or, as an alternative: schedule those professional learning days as an extension to the teacher contract. When queried about whether or not the DE was, as part of their plan to cover the cost of this training; pay for the added days to the contract I was met with radio silence. For about two weeks. Finally the answer came: that is a local decision. In other words, no they weren't going to pay for those days.

On the other hand the AEA is ready, willing, and able to manage that training and provide the flexibility needed in order to embed the training into our calendar. Granted, there is a fee for service that essentially would make is a wash, but the end result would provide for a richer training regimen with a higher likelihood of becoming part of practice. In fact, embedded profession learning has been proven to be much more effective in becoming part of professional practice! In fact, that is the whole premise of the Iowa Professional Development Model (IPDM). The way the DE is rolling out this training would make it difficult, if not impossible to implement the IPDM with fidelity. Dare I say this is the antithesis of the spirit of continuous instructional improvement in a school? One must wonder why, in the AEA reform bill, a requirement exists where the DE must approve all district requests for professional learning through the AEA. 

Last week, superintendents received a monthly update from the Department where they announced the state is preparing to contract 'high quality curriculum and instructional materials'. Specifically in the core content areas of English/Language arts and math. Why? While it is not framed as a requirement, I do wonder why they feel this is even necessary. I wonder if we should expect, at some point a mandate to use specific state mandated curriculum. If that is the case, the DE is outside their scope of responsibility and far outside their lane. Curriculum adoption is squarely within the of responsibility of local school districts: specifically the Board of Directors of each LEA. 

Perhaps my views are out of bounds. I will readily admit that the vast majority of those who work at the Department are highly qualified individuals. Many of them are former employees at school districts, who served as teachers, administrators, or other central office personnel. For the most part they are very capable, highly trained individuals. But not more so than those serving in school districts and AEAs all across the state. Should we anticipate additional mandates regarding the use of these materials, school information systems, specificity of what is taught and when at some point? Based on all the aforementioned proposals I hope you can understand the question. Clearly, many legislative proposals currently under debate are developed, by design to consolidate and centralize power. Again, I must wonder, why?

Does a Rising Tide Lift All Boats?

I am very supportive of the proposal to raise the starting salary of teachers in Iowa to $50,000. With the current minimum salary being just $33,500 this is long overdue. Granted, while the map below depicts few districts who actually start teachers at $33,500 (few is too many in my view), the fact we have these discrepancies is startling. Furthermore, I would opine there isn't a superintendent in the state who would like nothing more than to substantially raise salaries for their staff. Even so, with a spread of $19,024 one most wonder how those districts are even able to compete for talent.

Our teachers, and in fact all school employees deserve to be adequately compensated. They are highly trained professionals tasked with the most important of all responsibilities. They are under constant scrutiny and at times held to unrealistic expectations. Yet at the same time, I have many questions and wonder if this in fact is sustainable over the long term. As pitched, the proposal calls for a starting salary of $50,000 and $62,000 for teachers with at least 12 years of experience. 

To begin our discussion, it might be useful to first unpack how teachers are paid. As you might imagine, there are a vast number of compensation systems in Iowa. Some use indexes, while others may increase wages by a 'flat dollar amount'. Others may pool resources or award raises based on credentials. However, regardless of the system used it all boils down to how much revenue is generated by the school. Revenue generation is a simple equation: enrollment [times] cost per pupil. Enrollment is a function of geography and proximity to amenities. In other words, is it desirable for families to want to live there? Localities can impact this to a certain degree, but lets face it: if you are 30 miles from the grocery store and an hour from a healthcare facility that is going to negatively impact who wants to live in your district. Ergo a scenario where enrollment will be in a constant state of decline. So while it may be fair to state that localities can have some control over enrollment (population growth), there are significant limitations. On the other hand, the state has sole control over the cost per pupil and how much it grows year over year. The primary reason we are even having this debate is because the cost per pupil has not grown adequately for more than a decade.

Still, the situation is a bit different here in Hudson. We are experiencing enrollment growth. This is due in part to decisions that have been made by our city council to embrace residential development. People want to live here. Our schools have a strong reputation for providing an outstanding education: due in no small part to the hard work of the faculty! In addition, I would be remiss if I didn't point out the fact that we are geographically located at the metropolitan crossroads of Waterloo and Cedar Fall. Frankly, when asked if we are rural or suburban I'm not really sure which way to answer, because I think they both fit. When we compete for talent, we are not only competitive, but in many cases can offer a better compensation package than many of our peers. Yet, even with all that going for us; our base salary is far from $50,000.

In our district, the professional teaching faculty is compensated through an indexed salary schedule which you can view here. For the 2023-2024 school year, a starting teacher at Hudson can expect to earn $44,000. During each subsequent year of employment, if nothing else changes they can expect their salary to grow about 2%, which one could equate roughly to a cost of living adjustment. During contract negotiations, the discussion focuses around how much to increase the base wage. Because of the fact our schedule is indexed, changing the base recalculates the entire index. 

Now, let's assume for a moment we decide to increase the base salary to $45,000. On average, that would raise each teacher's wage by roughly 3.68%. The total cost of such a move would be $215,711.36. Based on our current staff, we would, at that point have 20 staff member who fall below the $50,000 threshold. In case you are wondering, that represents 29% of our teaching staff or 20 out of 70. To move those 20 teachers up to the new minimum would require an additional $79,703.50 for a grand total of $295,414.86. At the same time we have to remember that in a district like Hudson that is experiencing enrollment growth, we'll be adding teachers to our staff. Is this feasible? Well, the details are unknown but I suppose it could work.

But have you ever heard the phrase 'a rising tide lifts all boats'? In that context, it makes me wonder, what is the plan for the other 71% of teachers? Using our base pay rate of $44,000 as a starting point, if we simply increased the base to $50,000 it would cost $801,790.73. Does a rising tide lift all boats? In this case, I'm not sure that is possible. With a proposed $96 million standing appropriation, simple math would seem to prove the point. There are 325 school districts in Iowa and starting salaries in Iowa range from $33,500 to $52,524. Quite a spread, isn't it? If a rising tide lifts all boats, $96 million isn't going to work.

Allow me to go a bit further. According to our latest employee census, we have 149 employees; including non teacher coaches. (I know, crazy right?!) If we are targeting teachers who earn less than $50,000 in this proposal, then we are talking about roughly 13% of our work force. They absolutely deserve it! But so do the folks who clean the halls, answer the phones, and serve as paraprofessionals in our schools. 

It is also worth considering this. Had supplemental state aid (SSA) been adequate over the past decade or so, we wouldn't be in this dilemma right now. Our base salary for starting teachers would be in excess of $50,000, the hourly starting wage would be above $15, and the rising tide would have lifted all boats!

SSA and Teacher Pay Proposal Should be Top Priority

It is time for my annual plea for the legislature to set the SSA rate for school budgets! Unfortunately, setting this important variable within the prescribed time has been more of an anomaly than the norm. I can remember a time where the law required the rate to be set for the 'out year' (in this case fiscal year 26) within the 30 day timeframe (more about how the 30 day timeframe is defined can be found in the following paragraph). Back in the day, meeting this deadline meant schools had an approximate 18 month window for planning purposes. When the law changed, it reduced that planning period to 6 months. FY 25 begins on July 1, and this important variable is still unknown. You can be assured that school districts will be held accountable if they miss budgetary deadlines. But even though Iowa Code says 30 days, there is no statutory accountability measure if the legislature misses the deadline. To further complicate the matter, intermediary reporting measures were added to the process (beginning this year) in order to improve public accountability for taxing purposes. That's fine, but it is difficult to meet the benchmark without the variables that are needed to determine tax rates.

Supplemental State Aid (SSA) is the percentage by which the state cost per pupil grows annually. In her Condition of the State address, Governor Reynolds proposed a 2.5% increase in the state cost per pupil, or $191. The math works out to a roughly $224,054 increase in Hudson's regular program district cost. The trouble is, this proposal hasn't yet been translated into law. The legislature has to pass a bill out of both chambers and the governor needs to sign it. The law on the books requires this matter be settled within 30 days of the governor releasing her budget proposals. That deadline is this week. Now, a shell bill was introduced earlier last week, but it didn't contain a number; but merely a commitment that SSA would be addressed. Instead of focusing on pressing issues like this, they are working on some other things: like whether or not public school districts should be mandated to sing all four verses of the National Anthem on special occasions. 

I would argue settling SSA should be the focus right now, as well as determining how and if the governor's $50,000 starting salary proposal is going to come to fruition. Until we have those issues settled, it is challenging to make budgeting and staffing decisions for the next school year. Furthermore, as mentioned above, during the last legislative session an additional hurdle was added to the budget process. Specifically, taxing authorities like school districts are required to hold an additional public hearing on proposed tax rates. Those rates need to be certified with the county auditor by March 15. I would opine it is difficult to propose tax rates without knowing what SSA is going to be, particularly since they are directly related to one another. A few weeks ago, you may recall that I discussed the budget process and a proposed tax rate increase. It should have been lost on no one that a rate wasn't included in this discussion. Why? Because we won't know that proposed rate for certain until SSA is set. Until that number is known we are left with an academic exercise in speculation. 

The other item where additional clarity would helpful is the proposal to boost teacher wages. As you heard, the governor proposes a base salary of $50,000 for beginning teachers. This really is great news and one that has a lot of support all across the state. But, we have many questions about the mechanics of how this will work, and whether or not this can be sustained in the long term. It sounds like those very conversations are occurring in the legislature, which is absolutely necessary. At the same time though, the clock is ticking. 

Again, we are in budget season. Since approximately 80% of our general fund expenditures are accounted for in personnel, knowing the details of how this proposal will work is important. Now couple that with unknown SSA. Those are some pretty important variables that, if known, would enable us to paint an accurate budget picture. Absent those variables, budgets will have to be developed with a good dose of conjecture.