It seems like my latest posts have been narrow in scope with budget cuts and reauthorization of ESEA being front and center. Today I’ll add one more to this narrow focus with a post on what the 1.9% “cut” would mean to someone in our system. These numbers will help you understand why I raised the fairness issue in my May 26th post.
The salaries reflect the 1.9% reduction to the person’s placement on the salary schedule that is also applied to the responsibility and mandatory components of total salary. If a person’s salary also includes extra days or stipends the reduction will also apply to them.
The following two examples apply to positions that will move an experience increment next year offsetting the 1.9% cut to the salary schedule base. People in this situation will actually experience a raise.
MA+45 Step 10 2010-11 $59,922 2011-12 $60,589 Gain $667
BA+45 Step 7 2010-11 $47,198 2011-12 $47,878 Gain $680
The next example is at the bottom of a column and anyone in that situation will receive the full impact of the cut.
MA+90 Step 16 2010-11 $73,947 2011-12 $72,542 Loss $1405
The following example is from the BA+90 column where movement down in some cells will not cover the 1.9% cut. This appears to be the case for all columns in years 0-4 and other cells where the increase from year-to-year is less than the 1.9% cut.
BA+ 90 Step 4 2010-11 $48,470 2011-12 $48,140 Loss $330
What this all means is that it is situational, complex and driven by the differences in the salary schedule from cell-to-cell. You can see the problem in the partial schedule duplicated below where percent changes from year-to-year are not the same, with some less than the 1.9% and some greater. You can access the entire schedule here by clicking on the Staff Mix Factor, 2011 Proposals new, Legislature excel spread sheet.
So, we are left with a difficult situation. How do we find a fair and equitable way of deciding what to do to make up for the reduced revenue when not everyone is being impacted in the same way? In the few examples above we can see how the impact will differ depending upon experience and education. What is fair?
Add to this the impact on those thinking about retiring in the next two years and it raises even more issues. Is it fair to have reduced salary in the years used to calculate an individuals retirement income? I probably need to move away from "fair" to identify creative solutions to this difficult situation because fair doesn't do it for me. What that context might be, however, escapes me at this time.