Prepared Text for Board Meeting –
Marc A. Schare,
Today, we consider again
the pay increase for substitute teachers. This issue was first on the agenda
three weeks ago and pulled from the agenda to give the administration some time
to pull together supporting documentation to justify the pay increase. The data
that the district subsequently provided raised more questions than it answered.
The proposal this evening represents a compromise and I will be supporting that
compromise while pleading for the district to get a handle on the financial and
programmatic impacts of the use of substitute teachers in our schools.
We do not know the
financial impact of the pay raise. Indeed, it is difficult to even hazard a
guess because the data to support the “actual” cost of substitutes in the
district is not readily available. A very rough, probably wrong estimate is
around $50,000. It is my hope that the district does a better job at tracking
the financial impact of substitute teachers. It should be noted that our five
year forecast does include an increase for substitute pay and while the exact
amount of this increase is unknowable, I’m confident it will be less than what
is in the forecast.
Part of the proposal is to
replace some pool substitutes with daily substitutes. While originally, this
was designed to make the entire package cost neutral, some of us had concerns
that we were trading substitute quality for cost neutrality. This compromise is
actually a little more expensive than the administration’s original proposal.
It is my hope that the district make an attempt to
measure whether there are differences in quality between long term substitutes,
pool substitutes and daily substitutes so can make an appropriate data-driven
decision next year.
The bigger issue in my
opinion is why we need so many substitutes in the first place. According to
information provided by the district, we used 10660 substitute-days last year.
It should be noted that despite the National, State and Local shortage of
substitutes alluded to in the agenda, only 186 classes went uncovered,
however, the administration is adamant that without the pay raise, this number
could skyrocket and there is simply insufficient data to know for sure. Of the
10660 days, roughly 55% were illness related, 23% were related to teacher
conferences and professional development and 15% were nebulously labeled as
“unrestricted”. It seems intuitive that the use of any substitute at any time
is disruptive to the educational process so the obvious question that needs to
be asked is whether anything can be done or should be done to reduce the 38% of
substitute-days that are not related to illness and whether this is something
worth pursuing.
Lacking data, it would be
irresponsible in my opinion to vote against an administrative request for this
pay increase, but to reiterate, it is my hope that the district take
some time to study the programmatic and financial impact of substitute teachers
in the district and not forget the issue once the pay raise is granted.