It has always been my assumption that progression along the teachers’ salary scale is strictly based on years of service. If that bears to be true it has always troubled me that we are paying an “experienced” teacher $73k per year to teach elementary grades while paying an “inexperienced” teacher in high school $46K. The challenges, knowledge requirements and responsibilities between the two teaching positions are not comparable. Those differences should be recognized in the pay scale.
A salary of $ 73k for an experienced professional in any field does not strike me as out in left field. I think the fact that does cause taxpayers concern is that it is earned over 180 days of classroom time. After allowing for vacation time most professionals have to work 230 days to get their $73k. Often the “average” day for a teacher is less than 7.5 hours, although I am sure many teachers would dispute that. Should the teachers’ salary not recognize the benefits that go with a 180 day work year.
The really offensive part of the teachers’ salary package comes in the form of benefits. The total yearly cost to taxpayers for an experienced teacher must be $90 – 100K. Again that is for 180 days of classroom time. Granted the government is looking to end service awards but my guess that is about $700 per year per teacher. Peanuts compared to the total problem. The big money is in pension costs and somewhat other benefits. Teachers who work 180 days per year for 20 years get an absolutely generous pension, that everyone would long for.
So the government’s position is the teachers have to forego $700 (1%) increase in each of 2 years and a service award that costs taxpayers $700 per year. That is a yearly saving to taxpayers of $1400. From my perspective the government’s target should be to reduce the total cost per teacher per year of $4 -5000. I do not really care if it comes from salary freezes or benefit reductions.
Note: if the government is successful in ending the service award watch out for a significant accounting “win”. The government is setting up a liability ( yearly expense accrual) to pay this out when each employee retires. If it is done away with the government is able to “reverse” the accrual which provides a significant windfall for the government’s expenses. Surplus, surplus, surplus — and just before an election.
Good thinking,Bill. I wonder if we really need school boards. Are there jurisdictions, in Canada or interestingly, overseas , which provide good education without the middleman of boards?
My compliments on an excellent column. You are very correct on the need for the province to be able to achieve successful agreements to meet their fiscal plans.
Recently, I have been working with a community group including teachers to develop a concept for a single high school with two campuses in the Cole Harbour Area and 1600-1700 students. This has been necessitated by the decision of the last two governments to build a new mini-high school in Eastern Passage even with declining enrollments. The real concern of the community is losing specialist programs if we don’t have sufficient numbers.
In working with the teachers, I was struck by their lack of trust and support for the school board and its administration. They complain about excessive bureaucracy from the school board which detracts from their work in the classroom and with students.
This brings me to my main point in relation to Labour- Management Relations. The real employer is the school board and the province has no real involvement with the employee(teacher) on a day to day basis which can only lead to issues festering and not being addressed. The teachers I am dealing with are young and very enthusiastic about their job.
Maybe the province needs to look at the role of its Education Department and School Boards to eliminate duplication and result in direct involvement with the teachers. The HRSB has a massive first class building in Burnside which the teachers see as an albatross. I believe if the teachers were given a greater degree of autonomy and empowerment, we would make major progress. In other words, provide broad policy direction and then trust our teachers. This can lead to innovative thinking which is missing today.
Food for thought. Enjoy your columns as they are always so well researched.
All of your articles are well thought out and well written. Today’s article was a very important and balanced article. Let’s hope many teachers read it and decided to finally be responsible and approve the agreement twice recommended by their leadership.
As someone who spent an entire working career in the Real World, I find it very difficult to lose much sleep troubling myself over the terrible working and post working, conditions that this Provinces teachers must contend with.
It has always been my assumption that progression along the teachers’ salary scale is strictly based on years of service. If that bears to be true it has always troubled me that we are paying an “experienced” teacher $73k per year to teach elementary grades while paying an “inexperienced” teacher in high school $46K. The challenges, knowledge requirements and responsibilities between the two teaching positions are not comparable. Those differences should be recognized in the pay scale.
A salary of $ 73k for an experienced professional in any field does not strike me as out in left field. I think the fact that does cause taxpayers concern is that it is earned over 180 days of classroom time. After allowing for vacation time most professionals have to work 230 days to get their $73k. Often the “average” day for a teacher is less than 7.5 hours, although I am sure many teachers would dispute that. Should the teachers’ salary not recognize the benefits that go with a 180 day work year.
The really offensive part of the teachers’ salary package comes in the form of benefits. The total yearly cost to taxpayers for an experienced teacher must be $90 – 100K. Again that is for 180 days of classroom time. Granted the government is looking to end service awards but my guess that is about $700 per year per teacher. Peanuts compared to the total problem. The big money is in pension costs and somewhat other benefits. Teachers who work 180 days per year for 20 years get an absolutely generous pension, that everyone would long for.
So the government’s position is the teachers have to forego $700 (1%) increase in each of 2 years and a service award that costs taxpayers $700 per year. That is a yearly saving to taxpayers of $1400. From my perspective the government’s target should be to reduce the total cost per teacher per year of $4 -5000. I do not really care if it comes from salary freezes or benefit reductions.
Note: if the government is successful in ending the service award watch out for a significant accounting “win”. The government is setting up a liability ( yearly expense accrual) to pay this out when each employee retires. If it is done away with the government is able to “reverse” the accrual which provides a significant windfall for the government’s expenses. Surplus, surplus, surplus — and just before an election.
barry h | October 23, 2016 |
Good thinking,Bill. I wonder if we really need school boards. Are there jurisdictions, in Canada or interestingly, overseas , which provide good education without the middleman of boards?
Jim Radford | October 23, 2016 |
My compliments on an excellent column. You are very correct on the need for the province to be able to achieve successful agreements to meet their fiscal plans.
Recently, I have been working with a community group including teachers to develop a concept for a single high school with two campuses in the Cole Harbour Area and 1600-1700 students. This has been necessitated by the decision of the last two governments to build a new mini-high school in Eastern Passage even with declining enrollments. The real concern of the community is losing specialist programs if we don’t have sufficient numbers.
In working with the teachers, I was struck by their lack of trust and support for the school board and its administration. They complain about excessive bureaucracy from the school board which detracts from their work in the classroom and with students.
This brings me to my main point in relation to Labour- Management Relations. The real employer is the school board and the province has no real involvement with the employee(teacher) on a day to day basis which can only lead to issues festering and not being addressed. The teachers I am dealing with are young and very enthusiastic about their job.
Maybe the province needs to look at the role of its Education Department and School Boards to eliminate duplication and result in direct involvement with the teachers. The HRSB has a massive first class building in Burnside which the teachers see as an albatross. I believe if the teachers were given a greater degree of autonomy and empowerment, we would make major progress. In other words, provide broad policy direction and then trust our teachers. This can lead to innovative thinking which is missing today.
Food for thought. Enjoy your columns as they are always so well researched.
David | October 22, 2016 |
All of your articles are well thought out and well written. Today’s article was a very important and balanced article. Let’s hope many teachers read it and decided to finally be responsible and approve the agreement twice recommended by their leadership.
Robbie Shaw | October 22, 2016 |
As someone who spent an entire working career in the Real World, I find it very difficult to lose much sleep troubling myself over the terrible working and post working, conditions that this Provinces teachers must contend with.
Bob MacKenzie | October 21, 2016 |