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!