Eddyville.Org

The last time the school board met was on March 8.  There was a work session to review the proposed budget submitted by the administration. The board did not make any changes.  Immediately after the work session, there was an official meeting to approve the proposed budget for the required publication in the paper (this does not mean that the Board gave final approval of the budget – that will come after a public hearing).  A public hearing on the budget is required by law, and this hearing is scheduled to be held at the Blakesburg Middle School, this Monday, March 22, at 6:00 p.m.

Included in the presentation by the administration were proposed cost cutting measures totaling $475,000.  Ed Glenn, the board’s president, referred to these measures as “possible” cost savings to be considered by the Board at a later date.  Below is a list of these measures which I have grouped into different categories:

Today’s blog will focus on extended contracts; and the next blog will focus on the proposed move of the middle school from Blakesburg to Eddyville.

Teachers are paid in accordance with a Master Contract.  The schedule of pay is based on longevity and educational level.  For example, newly hired teachers with a BA/BS degree will start at $26,450 which is step one for that level of education. As their longevity increases, they will automatically advance to the next step up to a point.  Teachers with just a BA/BS degree can only advance to step 12, which is presently at $38,088.  However, teachers with a BA degree plus 15 additional credits can advance to step 19, which is at $42,585. The maximum level of basic pay listed on the schedule is at $55,810 which is step 27 and requires a MA degree plus 60 additional credit hours.  According to the contract: “The salary schedule pay is based on the first 187 days.  Additional days will be paid per diem.”   

In addition to the basic pay schedule, teachers receive supplemental pay for various student extracurricular activities.  This supplemental salary schedule is based on assigned percentage factors for each specific activity such as coaching, student council advisor, directing plays, etc.   

In material presented to the Cost Savings Committee, there was a page on extended contracts.  Included on this page was information on the existing extended contracts and the number of additional days of pay for the following teaching staff:  Building & Trades Instructor, High School Instrumental/Marching Band Instructor, the Agriculture Instructor, the High School Counselor. and the Pre-School Coordinator.  It was also noted on the same page that, in the past, some administrator contracts “were extended to justify increase of salaries closer to the average of the state and conference.”  In addition, it was noted that this was also a factor for a salary increase for a teacher around nine years ago.

At one of the meetings of the Cost Savings Committee, there was a discussion that it might be better to have contracts for the entire period of time that certain teachers are scheduled or expected to work – such as the above listed instructors.  Part of the reasoning for this was that paying these instructors a daily or “per diem” rate, based on the basic contract of 187 days per year, increases their pay in disproportion to other teachers.  One of the recommendations of the Cost Savings Committe was to reduce the number of days for these instructors.

Some of these extended contracts go back many years.  Indeed, if mistakes were made in extending these contracts, it certainly was not the fault of the individual instructors. The most recent contract was the one for the Pre-School Coordinator when the preschool was started up a couple of years ago.  A new basic contract for all teachers is negotiated every year with the teacher union and, normally, the only changes made in the pay schedule is adding-in an increase for cost of living.  In my opinion, to single out a few instructors, who have extended contracts, for a reduction in pay is not fair especially for contracts that have existed for years.  Then, to top it off, the programs which will be affected by these cuts have been very successful and popular, such as the Marching Band and the Agriculture/FFA program.  If these proposed cuts are approved by the school board, there can be unintended consequences – a loss of these highly regarded instructors and a decline in the programs.

A week ago, a parent posted the following on the forum, under the heading of “What’s Best for the Kids:  “My band student came home from school very upset the other day, the reason was that Mr. O had informed his students that one of the possible cost cutting measures would be to cut his salary.  No more funding for summer practice.  He told his students that if these measures were taken, he would have to leave EB high because he cannot afford the reduction in his wages.”

Sometimes it is necessary, due to economic conditions, for employees to take a reduction in pay or at least to forego a pay raise.  But for a few teachers to be singled-out for pay reductions in the range of $4,000 to $5,000 is too much.  Who would not be affected with this kind of reduction in their pay.  If there was a small reduction of pay for all teachers, it would be more equitable; however, I do not believe such a reduction is necessary either.

The savings which would be realized by cutting extended contracts would only amount to $17,109.91 or 3.6% of the proposed savings of $475,000.  In the upcoming budget hearing, I hope the school board will not approve this small cost cutting measure because it will be the students, the parents and the taxpayers who will suffer in the long run.  If you agree, please contact your school board members or attend the public hearing on the budget this Monday.