so how long would the strike last if you started hiring replacememnts??

i would think that the prospect of a teacher losing a great gig in athe best plalce in ri to reach would be pretty scary..

like maybe the strike would last a few hours???

I am certain no one is asking for such high pay increases, as you propose...You might want to get accurate facts before claiming to know all...

Good luck finding so many new teachers who are "highly qualified" according to the requirements demanded by the No Child Left Behind Act and state regulations...and who hold graduate degrees. I wonder what would happen to the high quality of education in East Greenwich if your thoughtful plan was realized?

.

Regarding Bob's comment of "I am certain no one is asking for such high pay increases, as you propose...You might want to get accurate facts before claiming to know all..."

Bob is simply wrong. I sat on the East Greenwich School Committee from 2002-2004 and analyzed every salary schedule from 1996-2004. I subsequently looked at the salary schedule for the last 3 year contract.

The salary increases are indeed that high.

I wrote about the hidden nature of these extreme salary increases in this 2004 ProJo editorial.

At the Chariho District, raises for teachers in the first 10 years range between 6.7 and 21.2 percent. Fourty seven percent of our teachers are in the first 10 years. The average raise for these teachers in 05-06 was 10.7%.

This comes from a report generated by The Education Partnership and reviewed by the Chariho administration for accuracy.

http://cspf.awardspace.com/education_partnership_chariho_co.htm

I believe every district in the state has similar provisions written into the contract.

Just out of curiousity...what is the average increase in salary over a ten year period for professionals in other vital occupations? I think it is important to view these statistics in relation to other professions that require similar qualifications and offer comparable important contributions to the community.

In my capacity as a corporate CEO, I look at data sources which track average salary increases for smaller companies (under $50 million/year in revenue) in both New England and across the USA.

The range for salary increases in recent years has typically been 3-4%/year. That range of average salary increases held true from executives down to first line employees. Quite a difference from the 8-12%/year salary increases that EG teachers are getting in 9 of the 10 job steps.

And in my last company, employees paid 25-35% of the company's cost for health and dental insurances. EG teachers pay different amounts based on their step; I understand their payments range between roughly 4-10%.

East Greenwich currently has an annual $5,000 cash buyback for teachers who do not use the school system's health insurance plan. I have been told that 68 teachers (which I think is between 25-35% of all teachers) utilize that program in East Greenwich. Not a single corporation I have worked in since 1978 has ever had such a cash buyback program.

Please answer Bob's question with your 2007 numbers and not 2004 numbers.

I will ask for the more recent contract salary schedule and then show the updated analysis.

But it is an academic exercise which won't change the answer. It will show that 8-12%/year salary increases have been going on for 3 additional years.

Why? Like in all of the earlier years of this decade, all you do is take the 2004 numbers and add about 3%/year to each of the 10 steps.

The bottom line is that adding the same percentage to the salary dollars in all 10 steps in 2004 doesn't change the implicit increases already built into the 10 steps back then. In other words, it will leave you with the same 8-12%/year increases that existed in prior years. We learned that lesson during all previous contract extension agreements.

You mention your job as a corporate CEO... In order to be used as a fair comparison point, I think it would be crucial to state the beginning earnings and final earnings during a ten year period for people working in the business realm. I think it would help to state actual salaries as opposed to percentages. It makes the argument more specific. Interesting that the only numbers you cite are connected to what teachers pay for health care as opposed to what they earn each year. If you have the specific numbers, use them.

"In order to be used as a fair comparison point, I think it would be crucial to state the beginning earnings and final earnings during a ten year period for people working in the business realm"

By all means.

And to make this a completely accurate comparison, we only need to do two other things:

> Break out those earnings, including benefits and pension, to a daily or hourly rate - again, strictly in the interest of an accurate comparison;

> identify any other profession which bestows annual raises of 3%-12% hermetically sealed from consideration of merit or accomplishment.

We should not ignore the other side of the coin.

I think most people want to pay an excellent teacher an excellent wage. The problem is that unions require equity over fairness. Whatever we pay the best teacher, we must also pay the worst teacher.

When we see an average raise of 3-4% in the private market (as Don noted), within this number are the top performers who make double-digit raises, and also included in this number are the bottom performers who get nothing, or were shown the door. Both of which unions do not allow at public schools.

If you really think we can fire incompetent teachers, do some research on “rubber rooms” in public education. In one of the schools currently on strike there were two people assigned to the copy room (I have heard there is now a third but have not been able to verify). Do you think the employees at Staples making copies earn $36 an hour and have gold plated pensions and health care?