Step Increases: The Big Teacher Raises That Don’t Make the News

Capitol Confidential ^ | 5/24/2011 | Tom Gantert

[MichCapCon]

Many public school teachers get more than one raise during a school year. While across-the-board cost of living increases have been reported to be as less than 1 percent in some media reports, it is the automatic step increases that generate the biggest boost in earnings for teachers. And these increases are largely ignored in most media accounts.

“Step increases provide automatic rewards when teachers merely notch another year on their belt,” said Michael Van Beek, education policy director at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, in an e-mail. “These lock in significant cost increases for districts and put a large amount of strain on school budgets.”

The Mattawan Board of Education sent a letter to parents saying that budget needs necessitated that the district send layoff notices to all of its 207 teachers. Mattawan is facing a projected $4-million deficit in 2011-12, according to the Kalamazoo Gazette.

Yet, Mattawan teachers who have 13 years of service or less are still set to receive step increases of more than 5 percent for this year and the next two. Van Beek said 65 percent of Mattawan’s teachers have 11 years or less experience.

[TheBattman]

I’ve brought this up many times when the whole concept of “teacher raises” has come up. We hear moans and complaints from teachers (primarily union) when a district doesn’t give a raise... yet all but the most “seasoned” teachers get those automatic step increases every year.

Here in Arkansas, the legislature, as part of a misguided effort a few years ago to deal with a state supreme court ruling that said that school funding was “insufficient and inequitable”. One of their actions - mandate the minimum amount of “steps” in the salary schedules. In Arkansas, school districts must give AT LEAST a $500 increase each year of teaching. This is regardless of your job performance. The state also stipulates the minimum number of “steps”.

I might could understand a teacher who has been in the classroom for 20+ years, and who has an exemplary record as a teacher who has “run out” of steps in the salary schedule being a bit miffed at not receiving some kind of raise over the years. But the vast majority fall into the steps in the salary schedule.

[T-Bird45]

So I guess you are glad to put a smile on your face and a spring in your step for an additional $50/month (that really means about $25 by the time .gov gets their share) on your pay stub? I get being glad to have a job and the summer off (assuming not going to school to upgrade/maintain certifications as many do) but I suspect the vast majority of the private sector would not be amused with the step raises typically awarded.

[TheBattman]

I think you are missing the point - teachers are GUARANTEED an increase each and every year - even if they are horrible.

Also - remember teachers are contract employees. Here in Arkansas, I believe the contracts are still for 185 days.

Yes, I realize that is only $2.70 per-day. But I also know that many workers go a year without a raise.

A “typical” full-time employee of a company generally works somewhere between 245-250 days per year (actually “on the job” days). As a former teacher, I know full-well that any teacher worth anything puts in more than the flat “contracted” days. But still -— 40-50 less “actual work days” than a “civilian” job... an automatic “raise” of $500 each year doesn’t seem so bad.

And while on the subject - I cannot speak for all states, but the ones I have any knowledge of all give extra increments for achieving extra hours/degrees (which here in Arkansas result in not only a differential on the salary schedule - basically a whole different schedule - as well as larger increments. So there is payoff for that too.

Here in Arkansas, teachers are required to get 60 hours of “inservice” each year to maintain certification. Those days are included in the 185 days of contract - and you can substitute college hours for those inservice hours - and thus get paid both as contracted time, and as an higher salary schedule.

[T-Bird45]

No, actually I believe I got the point because guarantee or not, teaching is not a get-rich employment in most places. That is my primary objection to your opinion.

I note you are a former teacher so I’ll note my bona fides: married to a school-based speech pathologist that worked 28 years and retired in 2009. Starting salary in OK in 1981 was around $14k, last full year was around $42k = gaining around $1k/yr of service. This service time included getting a Master’s Degree (required for her specialty) and the normal professional development during the year, sometimes during the summer. The job challenges increased over the years as autism/Asperger’s became a larger issue from about the early 90s.

The reason my wife stayed at the job, despite the lack of financial gain, is because she cared about the kids. This is really the only way we can retain teachers because pure financial appeal is definitely not there and never has been. Those who wish to compare teaching and its challenges to private employment as equivalent careers are not in tune with reality, IMO. “Payoff”????? Don’t think so...

[The Antiyuppie]

To give another point of view on this, non-unionized, private, and in particular, Catholic schools have a rather elegant solution for this problem: they don’t renew the contracts of the older teachers because they become too expensive. There is a near-limitless supply of starry-eyed, naive, freshly minted teachers available who work cheap. Less on the insurance, too.