Why are the "real raises" received by teachers so darned much?

Mr. Deans points out that the teacher salary schedule provides for binary, or two types of "raises" each year: those that occur by moving up the "steps"- seniority, as it were, and those raises that allow for (or encourage) teachers to receive additional money as they solidify and improve their credentials. This results in raises that are actually "larger" than those that are reported out as having been negotiated. This two-tiered system has been the standard for virtually every teacher's contract in the state in every community for probably 30 years; and in a majority of other states as well. From the perspective of the State, regulations now exist that require all teachers to achieve "Master" status if they are to continue to hold a license to teach in the state; and to continue their education past a graduate degree if they are to maintain their license. Most School systems feel that the best teachers are those who are keeping up with the remarkable changes in theory and technology that occur in education literally overnight; and incentivize teachers to comply with the state regs and bring that knowledge back into the classroom for the benefit of the students. If you read the help wanted section of any Sunday paper, you will find that every industry does the same thing.

With regard to the annual raises negotiated for each year with the teachers, above and beyond steps and the incentives for proficiency, he notes a dramatic increase in the '03-'05
salary schedules. Having negotiated that particular contract, I can shed some light on those increases. The School Committee went into those negotiations making a public commitment to significantly raise teacher salaries. After an exhaustive study , we realized that our starting salaries were significantly below the state average, a fact confirmed for us by the rate at which we were losing teachers at the earliest step levels, and with the least seniority. We were also experiencing a great deal of difficulty hiring teachers; we would interview a teacher (especially in the maths and sciences), only to lose them to another comparable school system that was starting them at $5,000 more than we were offering. We found we could not compete in the market, and informed the teachers that significant resources would be put into salaries for the term of the contract negotiated; our projections were that we would achieve a base salary that was competitive by the third year; and that this goal, once achieved, would not be replicated again; it was a one-time infusion committed by the community to bring salaries up to or near the state average. So the significant salary changes made during that contract were intentional, were not frivolous, were based on projections of the quality of the staff we wanted to attract and retain. If, as the old saying goes, you get what you pay for, the corollary is also true-- you don't get what you don't pay for.

Next up, are these raises "exorbitant'?