A pay freeze for teachers? Not if we want the best and brightest
By Tom Dooher
President
Education Minnesota
As Minnesota addresses its important budget issues it’s critical that we don’t do long-term harm in the name of short-term gain. Such is the case with one proposal discussed Sunday in the Star Tribune (editorial: Teacher pay freeze is right for times).
Freezing the pay of teachers will not only be counter-productive to the long-term needs of educating Minnesota students, it will do nothing to address the real pressure on school budgets.
Minnesota will lose half its teaching force to retirement in the next decade or so. It’s critical that we act now to recruit and retain the talented prospective candidates we need to teach our future students. That’s already difficult enough, with starting pay for teachers averaging $33,000 per year. It gets even tougher to convince young people to commit to a career in teaching if the state starts unilaterally freezing salaries. They will simply take their skills into the private sector, where salary increases of 3% are expected in 2011 (Money Magazine, January-February 2011). Or, if they do commit to a career in teaching, they’ll increasingly see other states as better options. Minnesota now stands 21st in the nation in average teacher salary, about $1,000 below the national average. Other states already intensely recruit our college graduates. A pay freeze will give out-of-state recruiters even more leverage.
Likewise, a pay freeze hurts most those current educators we’re trying hardest to retain. No one gets into teaching to get rich, but Minnesota already pays beginning educators so little that some qualify for public assistance. It seems logical that a pay freeze will push some out of the profession altogether.
Just like all other Minnesota taxpayers, teachers are already making historic sacrifices. A record number of local unions already agreed to some form of pay freeze in the latest contracts. Again, like many other Minnesotans, teachers’ take home pay has been falling for years, with any small raises more than offset by stunning increases in the cost of health insurance for their families. Communities that managed to give their teachers even a minimal increase should be applauded. They recognize the need to keep the profession attractive and took steps to do so.
The Department of Education reports that the average teacher salary in Minnesota rose $17 last year, hardly the $80 million the Minnesota Association of School Administrators claims a freeze would save.
It’s also ironic that political leaders, who run for office under the banner of “returning local control to communities,” would make one of their first proposals a measure to eliminate local control of school finances. Locally-elected school boards and communities know better than politicians in St. Paul what’s best for their schools.
Remarkably, the measure also strips away a requirement that districts set aside a certain amount of money for teacher development. In a day and age when we’re rightfully demanding that only the best teach our children, why in the world would we eliminate this means of helping teachers improve their effectiveness.
Finally, this bill does nothing to address one of the real driving forces in escalating education costs: The skyrocketing price of health insurance coverage. Like everyone else, teachers are shouldering a heavier share of the burden of health insurance premiums. Yet in the latest contracts, at least half of the total cost increase to schools went directly into the pockets of health insurance companies.
If Minnesota lawmakers want to save big money in education, they could start by simply putting all school employees into the same pool for health insurance. According to the Minnesota Management and Budget office, that one move would save Minnesota taxpayers $179 million in just the first three full years of operation, with annual savings to grow and continue every year into the future. No classroom cuts. No layoffs. No pay freezes. And yet significant savings for schools that dwarf the dubious claim of savings from the pay freeze proposal.
As well-meaning as the pay freeze proposal might be, it’s not in the best interests of Minnesota students, communities, or teachers.
January 26, 2011