"It was a last-minute, hurry-up attempt by the House to come up with some sort of education bill that promises more funding with way too many strings attached," Greguson said....
"If the state doesn't step in and help us, this is an impossibility for a lot of school districts," he said. "But the state does say they're going to fund it."
Passage of the bill, however, means less local control.
"If this bill passes, local control will be at an all-time low," Greguson said. "I thought one of the foundations of the Republican platform has always been more local control" [emphasis mine; Elisa Sand, "Bill Setting Minimum Teacher Salaries Takes Away Local Control," Madison Daily Leader, 2008.02.18].
There is another, simpler bill to increase teacher pay, SB 187. It simply raises the per student allocation 3.8% in FY 2009 to $4700 and requires that schools certify that they will raise their average teacher salary and benefits by at least the same percentage. No raise, or not enough of a raise, and the state only gives the school $4642 per student. That's still a string, but a lot less of a string than HB 1124's unfunded mandate of a minimum $30K salary and all the salary tiers Dr. Melmer would get to administer.
One idea that has been suggested to our legislators is to put a provision in SB 187 that requires "No less than 80% of the increase be used for enhanced teacher salaries and benefits" rather than requiring 100% of it. Most districts spend over 80% of their budget on salaries the way it is, and with an 80% minimum, districts would have some wiggle room to pay added expenses such as heating bills, fuel for busing and repairs that have skyrocketed above the inflation rate. The Governor forgets that districts have inflationary pressure just like everyone else and it certainly exceeds 2.5%.
ReplyDelete