Salary Freeze for Richfield, State Teachers Moves One Step Closer to Law

The Minnesota State Senate passed Senate File 56 in a 36-29 vote last week, moving the state one step closer to a legally mandated two-year pay freeze for all public school employees. Although the law would not apply to previously existing contracts, Richfield Public School teachers fear they would feel its effects immediately.

The current contract for public teachers expires July 1, which is the end of this fiscal year. As by Richfield Patch, the bill aims to help with the state and school districts' budget deficits and, if passed into law, teachers in the district would not be eligible for a pay increase until 2013. The legislation would also make it illegal for public school employees to strike over wage freezes.

While Education Richfield, the local Richfield teachers union, said that it remains sensitive to concerns over public education financing during a time of acute fiscal crisis, several of its members have aligned themselves with Education Minnesota, the statewide teachers union, in roundly condemning the bill.

Andy Uhler, who teaches social studies at Richfield Middle School and is president of Education Richfield, opposed the bill on the grounds that it would eliminate local negotiations between teachers and school boards.

“We’d like to see local control instituted here [in Richfield], rather than using a state mandate for a pay freeze,” Uhler told Patch. “At the same time, [Richfield teachers] are completely aware and appreciative of the financial situation that Richfield Public Schools face, and I’d like to see the school board, as well as the school district, be able to bargain with us in good faith.”

He also emphasized that Education Richfield has not come out with an official position on the bill.

Sen. Ken Kelash (D–Minneapolis), who voted nay on the bill, echoed those sentiments.

“I think the idea that you’re going to do [pay freezes] on a state level is just plain wrong. It interferes with local negotiations,” Kelash said. “In many situations, teachers have already arranged for a pay freeze so no more jobs are lost. That flexibility is gone when a law like this is passed.”

As reported in the Star Tribune, Sen. Dave Thompson (R–Lakeville), the bill’s sponsor, dismissed such concerns. During a recent Senate floor debate he argued that “local control is not real,” since school districts are already bound by numerous state and federal education mandates.

In its contract with the school district for the 2009 through 2011 school years, Richfield teachers negotiated for a 1 percent pay increase each year. As for typical teachers' salaries, the Richfield School District reported told Patch a beginning teacher's salary was approximately $35,035 this year, while the average teacher salary was $59,318. The highest salary earned by a Richfield teacher was $81, 259.

Richfield Public School teachers and administrators both worry about the potential damage a mandate such as S.F. 56 would have on progress the district has recently made.

Mary Supple, sixth grade teacher at Richfield Middle School and part of Education Richfield’s contract negotiation team, expressed concern about possible effects the bill would have on each school district’s ability to creatively respond to the fluctuating needs of students and teachers alike.

Supple cited the opening of  Richfield S.T.E.M. School in 2010 and the creation of the Richfield Dual Language School as examples of just such creative collaboration. However, she worried that blanket measures would not only freeze teacher salaries, but also dampen teacher enthusiasm. Enthusiasm needed, she said, to work towards solutions currently demanded by public education.

“The problem as I see it is that one size doesn’t fit all. Some districts are declining while others are growing in enrollment," she said. "What might work in one district might not work in another."

She went on to say, "There’s been a lot of collaboration in the district. If you feel that [teachers] can be part of the solution, you get better results. [Superintendent Bob] Slotterback has been really good about saying, ‘What do you think about this,’ and getting teachers’ feedback ... If you let us be creative, we can come up with something.” 

Regardless of how short-term budget woes are alleviated, Uhler and Supple both warned that a systemic dilemma was facing Minnesota education, one extending far beyond any fix provided by a temporary salary freeze.

“We’re all interested in saving jobs," Uhler said. “If [the bill] is relied upon to help with the budget for two years, OK. But, the logic that whenever there’s a budget problem, [the solution is to] cut pay and benefits for teachers–that's not good for public education in the U.S. in general.”

Gary Schuette, a gifted and talented teacher at Richfield S.T.E.M. School and lead negotiator for Education Richfield, expressed similar concerns over long-term budget shortfalls.

“You look at how Minnesota ranks in ACT scores then it’s obvious the hard work and dedication of schoolteachers and support of parents and families is making a difference,” Schuette said. “But at the same time, we’re being asked to do the same, if not more, with less. The reality is that at some point you can’t do more with less. How they solve that, I’m not sure.”

The Senate's bill has moved to the Minnesota House of Representatives floor, where it received its first reading on Feb. 14. Gov. Mark Dayton’s office did not respond to queries about the bill and the state's current budget dilemma. Richfield Patch will continue to cover this issue.