Spotlight on District 109 (and 113)

Last year, during the District 109 contract negotiations, we heard that the raises the teachers were asking for were “unsustainable.”  This was the district’s rationale for offering the teachers raises in the 1-2% range.  Once the contact was finalized, most teachers got a 3.75% raise.  When the 2012-2013 administrator contracts were finalized last year, we saw an average raise of around 6% and a maximum raise of 12%.  I really couldn’t understand how 4% raises were “unsustainable” for teachers, but 12% raises for administrators were OK.  There was also no rollback in administrator perks such as food, gas, medical/dental benefits, and tuition reimbursement.

I am glad to report that the 2013-2014 administrator contracts are more in line with the economy in general.  The average raise is 3%, with the maximum raise being 6%.  Most other benefits and perks are the same as in previous years.  The new Superintendent will not have a district-owned vehicle, as did his predecessor, but will receive $200 as a monthly vehicle allowance.  There is no indication of a policy change regarding mileage reimbursements.  The district pays administrators directly for their gas, instead of having them get reimbursed from the IRS at tax time.  A quick look at the last 12 months shows $8,700 in administrator gas charges.  Also, restaurant charges over that same period total around $8,000.  So while I’m glad to see the raises more in line, I think a comprehensive review of the district’s discretionary spending practices is in order.  We need to be running a tighter ship, especially if we want to tackle aggressive curriculum initiatives such as STEM.

As far as District 113 goes, let me first say that I was 100% behind the referendum.  I’ve always maintained that our tax money should be spent on items that directly affect learning: teachers, curriculum, and facilities.  However, since we have now given the district a significant amount of money out of our pockets, we expect some fiscal responsibility there too.  A quick look at the ISBE salary database for the 2011-2012 year shows that of the 37 administrators in the district at that time, 8 of them received double digit raises, with a maximum of 14%.  19 administrators received raises in excess of 6%.  So while I fully believe that District 113 is one of the best high school districts in the state, we also need to hold the administrators accountable.  The facilities projects need to come in on time and on budget.  Administrator raises cannot continue to be at an excessive level.

You may think that I don’t value administrators and I’m here to tell you that’s not true.  Some of you that know me well know that it’s definitely not true.  However, we have always had a culture, both in the public and private sector, that rewards the top levels at a higher rate than at the working level.  Raises should be based on performance, so it stands to reason that there are top performers at all levels, not just in upper management.  And even if you are a top performer, you’d better walk on water to get a 14% raise.  I don’t know how you can justify that, especially in this economy.  With all that’s going on in District’s 109 and 113 today, fiscal responsibility is more important now than ever.