POLICY HIGHLIGHTER

Volume 13, Number 32
December 8, 2003

Skirting the law on teacher pay raises

Last week the Washington Education Association (WEA) filed a lawsuit claiming that the legislature’s recent pay raises for beginning teachers violates the union’s collective bargaining rights. However, the WEA’s argument ignores a basic understanding of state law concerning teacher compensation.

Teachers are able to receive across-the-board cost-of-living-adjustments (COLAs) or general increases in their base salary only from the legislature according to current state law. The law forbids school boards from granting across-the-board base salary increases to teachers (RCW 28A.150.410 and 28A.400.200).

Pursuant to RCW 28A.400.200 (3)(a) The actual average salary paid to teachers cannot exceed the district’s average teacher salary as established by the legislature for the statewide salary schedule. For grandfathered school districts, this means that their average actual salary cannot exceed the average as grandfathered, meaning that unless the legislature changes the base rates (state salary schedule) they are unable to increase their base salaries for all teachers.

Is this a good idea? We don’t think so, but it’s the law unless the legislature changes it. And it’s being manipulated severely right now.

Districts are able to offer one-year individual contracts which compensate teachers for extra time, responsibilities, and incentives (TRI). However, if adopted, these one-year supplemental contracts in no way bind the state [RCW 28A.400.200(4) and 28A.400.275].

Unfortunately TRIs have become the source of major contract conflicts between teachers and school boards. Teacher union officials, realizing they can’t bargain for salary with districts, have been using TRIs to get around the state salary schedule. This is how it works.

When the legislature did not grant COLAs to all teachers during the last session (COLAs were granted to teachers in their first seven years), union officials said they would try to get them at the local level. But legally speaking, COLAs are part of the base salary, so local school boards are not allowed to grant them. Instead, to avert threatened strikes, many school boards increase TRI pay, sometimes to levels exceeding $50 per hour. They do this even when the necessary funds are unavailable or by “finding” money through reducing district financial reserves and/or raiding curriculum budgets and other academic programs. This forces shortfalls in other areas—shortfalls that districts then come back to the legislature to fill.

Districts that illegally agree to multi-year TRI contracts are promising funds they may not be able to provide. If a district’s funds fluctuate due to student enrollment, reduction of levy funds, etc, funds to honor the supplemental contract have to be taken from core academic programs. This is why supplemental contracts are suppose to be renegotiated each year based on that year’s available funding. Renewal of the contract is not required, but when the money is on the table and in teachers’ paychecks for one year, it is expected in succeeding years.

At best this is a snake-oil remedy for districts whose directors are legally responsible for providing academic quality for students.

The TRI was designed by the legislature to provide funds to school districts to aim specifically at increasing student achievement. The funds were to be managed/directed by the district. But in the collective bargaining process, TRI funds have been used otherwise and are managed mostly by teachers. Legislative intent has been undermined, and as we saw in Marysville, when district officials wanted to get back in the driver’s seat regarding how teachers intended to direct usage of the funds, union officials told teachers that the district was asking them to “work without pay.” It was a disingenuous charge, but it worked for the union.

As a result, rather than TRI contracts being used to improve student academic performance, in some cases, funding them may actually result in education programs being cut, thus potentially compromising student academic performance.

Using TRI money principally to increase teacher pay is troublesome on several counts:

• Large discrepancies exist from one district to the next in the number of TRI days and the rate of per diem per day. In some districts, the rate of pay for TRI is double the rate received by teachers for a day actually worked in the classroom.
  
  
• The union currently uses TRI contracts negotiated in one district to force similar agreements for teacher pay in neighboring districts.
  
  
• At some point very soon, districts with a low tax base will be unable to provide the TRI demanded and the stage will be set for another Doran court decision* due to unequal funding.

We suggest the following considerations as potential solutions:

• As long as the legislature keeps the state allocation salary model, they should make certain COLAs are not funded at the local level. Otherwise, lawsuits are a certainty. The Auditor’s office can enforce this provision.
  
  
• The legislature should clarify the intent of the TRI monies and who will manage and direct them to achieve legislative intent: the district’s board and administration or the union.
  
  
• Perhaps the legislature should also consider reminding districts that the state will not be held responsible for TRI increases that are beyond a district’s revenue capacity.

*Doran 1 (1977) - Judge Robert Doran’s decision that the state was not meeting its duty to fund basic education resulted in the adoption of the Basic Education Act of 1977; Doran 2 (1983) - Required funding of special-education, bilingual education, and remediation assistance; Doran 3 (1988) - Addressed the state’s funding formula for special-education.

Additional Information:

RCW 28A.150.410

(1) The legislature shall establish for each school year in the appropriations act a statewide salary allocation schedule, for allocation purposes only, to be used to distribute funds for basic education certificated instructional staff salaries under RCW 28A.150.260.

RCW 28A.400.200

(3)(a) The actual average salary paid to certificated instructional staff shall not exceed the district's average certificated instructional staff salary used for the state basic education allocations for that school year as determined pursuant to RCW 28A.150.410.

(4) Salaries and benefits for certificated instructional staff may exceed the limitations in subsection (3) of this section only by separate contract for additional time, additional responsibilities, or incentives. Supplemental contracts shall not cause the state to incur any present or future funding obligation. Supplemental contracts shall be subject to the collective bargaining provisions of chapter 41.59 RCW and the provisions of RCW 28A.405.240, shall not exceed one year, and if not renewed shall not constitute adverse change in accordance with RCW 28A.405.300 through 28A.405.380. No district may enter into a supplemental contract under this subsection for the provision of services which are a part of the basic education program required by Article IX, section 3 of the state Constitution.

RCW 28A.400.275

(1) Any contract for employee benefits executed after April 13, 1990, between a school district and a benefit provider or employee bargaining unit is null and void unless it contains an agreement to abide by state laws relating to school district employee benefits. The term of the contract may not exceed one year.

RCW 41.59.935

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to grant employers or employees the right to reach agreements regarding salary or compensation increases in excess of those authorized in accordance with RCW 28A.150.410 and 28A.400.200.

Prepared by Jason Mercier (Budget Research Analyst) and Bob Williams (President)

Contact: Jason Mercier | Budget Research Analyst | 360.956.3482

Evergreen Freedom Foundation P.O. Box 552, Olympia, WA 98507 Phone: (360) 956-3482, Fax: (360) 352-1874 Email: effwa@effwa.org