.
Feedback

Spotlight on District 109

A look inside the new teachers' contract.

Well, it was a long hard-fought contract negotiation, but now it’s done.  It’s time to take a look at the contract and see the result of what we argued about for six months.  Let’s get right to it.

VIEW THE CONTRACT

SALARY

As many of you may know, most teacher salary schedules are broken down into lanes and steps.  The DEA schedule has 6 lanes corresponding to various levels of education, from Bachelors all the way up to Masters plus 18 credit hours.  There are also steps, which roughly correspond to the number of years of teaching in the district.  For 2011-2012, the teachers did not advance to the next step.  Instead, they got a  one-time $2,000 payment.  For the next two years, the salary schedule stays exactly the same, meaning a teacher advances one step per year.  The increase between the steps is 3.75% for steps 1-4 and 4% for steps 5-6.  For the 2014-2015 school year, the entire schedule increases by 1%.

BENEFITS

For the first two years, the co-pays, deductibles, and out-of-pocket maximums were frozen to the 2010-2011 level.  For the last two years they increase.  I believe this is essentially the Board’s proposal.  However, the teachers got a reduction in their portion of the PPO family premium, from 40% to 35%, for the last three years of the contract.  This was sorely needed as teachers with families were paying more than their fair share in premiums.

EVALUATIONS

The evaluation process is the same as before for the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years.  A joint administration-teacher committee will work until next July to develop a new evaluation.  Another item of note is that administration must notify teachers of any unsatisfactory performance in writing and not just verbally.  This is good news for people who complain that it’s difficult to terminate tenured
teachers.  Written documentation is required and this will ensure the proper process is followed.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

The major change here is the addition of a Joint Committee which includes six administrators, six teachers, and a minimum of two parents.  The parents are chosen jointly by the Superintendent and the DEA President.  The important piece here is that they will report their findings to the Superintendent AND the Board of Education.  This should help to eliminate the situation we found ourselves in recently when the Board was unaware of the deterioration of special ed services.  In addition, special ed caseloads will be in terms of minutes and not periods, and teachers will be allowed to sign the IEP minutes document.

So, all in all, it seems like a reasonable contract.  The key now is to operate out in the open.  Parents should remain vigilant and not wait for issues to fester before alerting the Board.  If your issues are not being addressed, you now have options.  There is the Parent Advocates for Education.  There is the new Joint Special Ed Committee.  And you should always feel comfortable sharing your issues with the board members.  Their job is to ensure the best education for all students.  It’s going to take all of us to turn this situation around, but based on the great people I’ve met over the last few months, I’m sure we can get it done.

John Russillo May 23, 2012 at 12:52 am
I was told it exists for the life of the contract.
AK May 23, 2012 at 01:35 am
Pretty good synopsis. :-)
David Greenberg May 23, 2012 at 05:19 am
It doesn't seem like it's too different from other education contracts. Raises year-after-year simply for being on the job ("steps"), or for taking some additional classes ("lanes").
Benefits that are 65% or more paid by the taxpayers... ("District"). What's the dollar amount of the benefits? And finally, why should the taxpayers be expected to contribute anything, let alone the lion's share of the cost for benefits? Why shouldn't the amount that the District contributes on behalf of an employee fall (approaching zero) as the employee's pay rises?
John Russillo May 23, 2012 at 10:56 am
I'm sure you will be a leader in education finance reform someday. Until then, we'll work with what we have.
Curious Resident May 23, 2012 at 02:11 pm
As a resident I am just not sure if it was okay for the faculty to just get a straight bonus the way I read it. There is a big difference between retroactive pay that I am sure the faculty believed they would be getting and $2000. How was that fair to the faculty? As for insurance, I reread that pary of the contract and it goes down for family PPO but up for everyone else.
David Greenberg May 23, 2012 at 05:57 pm
Thanks, I certainly hope to effect positive change. But why not work to effect such reforms now?
John Russillo May 23, 2012 at 06:08 pm
Try it in your district and let us know how it goes.
John Russillo May 23, 2012 at 06:17 pm
That is true but the PPO single stayed at 5% with the max increasing by only $150.
Mara Meyer May 23, 2012 at 09:31 pm
John, isn't this a great way to repair relationships by punishing the teachers by not giving them credit for this year? I understand that TRS would be paid, however what implications does this have for retirement? Does a teacher now have to wait a year longer if they wish to retire? This is dumb!
As for the Special Education issues, this figure-head committee will not accomplish much with the current head of the Administration and the Board of Education. The policies and instructional program will not lend itself to any change. How can the parents not have to worry about truth in practice without someone overseeing the process? Interesting! What has the new contract done regarding the retirement provisions for teachers and administrators? Still offerring Golden Parachutes at the expense of the community? Also, since when is a Board of Education allowed to divert money from the educational fund for capital projects? Thanks for your work!
John Russillo May 23, 2012 at 10:23 pm
All good questions. I believe the Board can divert money on a one-time basis between the funds. The next Facilities Development Committee meeting is 6/18. I believe the consultant will be delivering their recommendations for the long term facilities plan. That should shed some light on the financial objectives.
Another point of note is that the Finance Committee will be meeting (in closed session, of course) to finalize the 2012-2013 administrator contracts. The public will not get to see them until they are signed, sometime in late June. Unfortunately we will not get to provide public input to the Board on admin salaries, benefits, and perks. However, nothing is stopping us from emailing the board members if we have strong feelings on the subject. It will be very interesting to see what kind of "fiscally responsible" packages they will receive.
Curious Resident May 26, 2012 at 04:13 pm
I agree with Ms. Meyer's, the staff of 109 did not really get a good deal in this. I keep coming back to my original question...$2000 is a lot less than retro active pay for the year. This is really a three year contract. Ms. Meyer's also brings up an interesting point that as a curious resident think should be reviewed, does this impact teacher retirement within the district? What about the staff members that retire this year, that salary increase was a bonus and a hearty pat on the back while walking away from the district. I really think that the school district including the board got everything they wanted including screwing the staff out of retro active pay and the staff got special education without clear stipulations in my opinion back in the contract. Still curious....does 240 minutes a week mean per student or per case load in the middle school?
Mark Stein May 26, 2012 at 04:22 pm
Years credited towards retirement are different than the steps that are credited on the salary schedule. District 109 teachers will still receive a year of service credit with the Teacher Retirement System (TRS).
The teacher's pension may be negatively affected because the salary that will be used to calculate the pension as each teacher decides to retire will be lower than it would have been if teachers had recieved their step increase. Teachers who are retiring this year were already receiving the pay and benefits negotiated under the last contract.
DeerfieldResident May 26, 2012 at 05:01 pm
Why is paying 40 percent of your family's health insurance premium "more than their fair share"? I couldn't disagree more. I pay 100 percent of my family's health insurance premium. Why should the taxpayers also be now paying 65 percent of all the families of the teachers?
The contract is what it is and I'm glad it's resolved, but your characterization of fair share just strikes me wrong.
John Russillo May 26, 2012 at 05:11 pm
What I meant was they are not paying their fair share as compared to single teachers (5%) and administrators (zero). Like it or not your taxes fund your public school system, including salaries and benefits. If you want to hire teachers who will work for free with no benefits you will certainly get what you pay for.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Deerfield Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Steven June 11, 2013 at 01:19 pm
There is nothing historical about this house. The historical house was torn down in order to buildRead More a modern house which vaguely resembles the home that was owned by Lyman Wilmot. But calling this new construction "an important part of the history of Deerfield" is a travesty.
annette kalcheim June 14, 2013 at 07:39 am
Mara, So sorry you feel this way. We feel that this really improves the neighborhood. Tried toRead More keep much of old structure, but Igor's rehab and lack of upkeep, made it impossible. couldn't even keep floors, all warped from water and walls full of mold. City did nothing to stop Igor from combining two distinct properties. I am having a champagne lunch Wed. June 19, 11:30 to 1:30. Would love for you to come and see the house. Maybe that will change your mind. Annette Kalcheim
Mara Meyer June 15, 2013 at 09:33 pm
Annette - my first statement was "beautiful house" so I have no qualms with your outcome -Read More however, this is a re-do, re-creation not the original house. But good luck! I am sure you will find a buyer quickly!
J.Lyn June 9, 2013 at 06:10 am
I neglected to include contact information. Please contact Jennifer at : j.lyn.mclick@gmail.com