When Jack Olkowski retired in 2003 from the school board in Three Lakes after 54 years of service, it was reported that he may have been the longest-serving school board member in our nation's history - a true testament to Wisconsin's strong commitment to public education. When interviewed, Jack said, "The most difficult time during my tenure was in the 1980s when boards and teachers unions clashed in collective bargaining before the state's qualified economic offer (QEO) legislation was enacted."
Today, Gov. Jim Doyle and state Democratic leaders have expressed a strong interest in repealing the QEO because they think it has locked "depressed teacher salaries and rising benefit costs" into place. But, the QEO isn't the problem. It is part of the solution.
Since the QEO became law in 1993, teachers have been effectively guaranteed annual salary and benefit increases of at least 3.8 percent. If a school board believes it cannot provide that minimum increase, the teachers union can challenge the board's offer.
The perennial argument that the QEO has "capped" teacher salaries or inhibited innovative bargaining just doesn't square with reality. Most teachers receive annual increases in salaries and benefits of more than 3.8 percent. The Wisconsin Association of School Boards' database shows that total compensation increases averaged 4.2 percent in 2007-08 and 4.1 percent in 2008-09.
Very few school districts have deployed the QEO as a means to settle their contracts, but having the law on the books has reined in settlements and sparked serious negotiations on health insurance.
Before the QEO, there was little risk to unions for seeking arbitration because the worst they could get was the board's best offer, and often they could compel an unelected arbitrator to give them more. This forced boards to reallocate their dollars or levy more taxes in an effort to maintain educational programs and facility upkeep.
In the nine years before the QEO, settlements increased, on average, more than 7 percent annually - well above the rate of inflation for each of those years. High-cost arbitration decisions created a whipsaw effect for neighboring school districts and property taxes began to increase at double-digit rates. Teacher contract settlements were a major factor driving up property taxes beyond homeowners' ability to pay in the 1980s and early '90s. Those settlements often included high-end health insurance provisions that have hamstrung boards' efforts to increase teacher salaries.
The QEO has allowed boards to shift their focus away from year-round collective bargaining to student achievement and public accountability for learning, avoiding the community turmoil over teacher contracts that Jack Olkowski experienced.
Now, some state policymakers want to repeal the QEO and go back to the old arbitration days. But at what cost to our students and communities?
When contract negotiations result in arbitration, it strips local control away from school boards and their communities. The final decision on salaries and benefits rests in the hand of arbitrators, unelected specialists in labor negotiations, not education. The arbitrators must sift through school district data and legal briefs to decide a school district's education spending - supplanting the locally elected school board, its administrators and local citizens. Why does the district provide online foreign language classes? Why does the middle school need a new roof this year? All spending decisions are on the table.
Further, levying more taxes no longer is an option to pay for higher compensation costs because the state now prevents boards from increasing property taxes beyond a state-imposed limit. If an arbitration decision exceeds a board's budget, it means the reallocation of resources or the elimination of staff to meet the higher compensation costs. Students will feel the pinch with larger class sizes and fewer educational opportunities. Eventually, a repeal of the QEO will compel boards to rely more heavily on referendums to pay for maintenance, technology and other critical costs that no longer can be afforded.
Whether we should make public policy decisions for communities and public education in this manner is one issue. Another major issue is the extensive legal time that is required to document budget data and elected officials' spending decisions in order for boards and the public to be fairly represented in arbitration. The legal costs of repealing the QEO would be a substantial burden for districts that already are strapped. That price tag alone should be considered before anyone starts to consider the merits of asking a school board to arbitrate its entire budget.
Students and communities deserve good schools. Teachers deserve fair compensation and decent health insurance. Repealing the QEO does not achieve those objectives; and worse, it will exacerbate the financial shortfalls school districts already are facing.
Those of us who remember the tumultuous days of the 1980s are not easily swayed by rhetoric and would urge those who advocate a repeal of the QEO to rethink their position and develop strategies that enhance educational opportunities for students.
- John H. Ashley is executive director of the Wisconsin Association of School Boards, a nonprofit association that provides information and services to Wisconsin school boards in the area of school law and policymaking, bargaining, legislation and leadership development.
Today, Gov. Jim Doyle and state Democratic leaders have expressed a strong interest in repealing the QEO because they think it has locked "depressed teacher salaries and rising benefit costs" into place. But, the QEO isn't the problem. It is part of the solution.
Since the QEO became law in 1993, teachers have been effectively guaranteed annual salary and benefit increases of at least 3.8 percent. If a school board believes it cannot provide that minimum increase, the teachers union can challenge the board's offer.
The perennial argument that the QEO has "capped" teacher salaries or inhibited innovative bargaining just doesn't square with reality. Most teachers receive annual increases in salaries and benefits of more than 3.8 percent. The Wisconsin Association of School Boards' database shows that total compensation increases averaged 4.2 percent in 2007-08 and 4.1 percent in 2008-09.
Very few school districts have deployed the QEO as a means to settle their contracts, but having the law on the books has reined in settlements and sparked serious negotiations on health insurance.
Before the QEO, there was little risk to unions for seeking arbitration because the worst they could get was the board's best offer, and often they could compel an unelected arbitrator to give them more. This forced boards to reallocate their dollars or levy more taxes in an effort to maintain educational programs and facility upkeep.
In the nine years before the QEO, settlements increased, on average, more than 7 percent annually - well above the rate of inflation for each of those years. High-cost arbitration decisions created a whipsaw effect for neighboring school districts and property taxes began to increase at double-digit rates. Teacher contract settlements were a major factor driving up property taxes beyond homeowners' ability to pay in the 1980s and early '90s. Those settlements often included high-end health insurance provisions that have hamstrung boards' efforts to increase teacher salaries.
The QEO has allowed boards to shift their focus away from year-round collective bargaining to student achievement and public accountability for learning, avoiding the community turmoil over teacher contracts that Jack Olkowski experienced.
Now, some state policymakers want to repeal the QEO and go back to the old arbitration days. But at what cost to our students and communities?
When contract negotiations result in arbitration, it strips local control away from school boards and their communities. The final decision on salaries and benefits rests in the hand of arbitrators, unelected specialists in labor negotiations, not education. The arbitrators must sift through school district data and legal briefs to decide a school district's education spending - supplanting the locally elected school board, its administrators and local citizens. Why does the district provide online foreign language classes? Why does the middle school need a new roof this year? All spending decisions are on the table.
Further, levying more taxes no longer is an option to pay for higher compensation costs because the state now prevents boards from increasing property taxes beyond a state-imposed limit. If an arbitration decision exceeds a board's budget, it means the reallocation of resources or the elimination of staff to meet the higher compensation costs. Students will feel the pinch with larger class sizes and fewer educational opportunities. Eventually, a repeal of the QEO will compel boards to rely more heavily on referendums to pay for maintenance, technology and other critical costs that no longer can be afforded.
Whether we should make public policy decisions for communities and public education in this manner is one issue. Another major issue is the extensive legal time that is required to document budget data and elected officials' spending decisions in order for boards and the public to be fairly represented in arbitration. The legal costs of repealing the QEO would be a substantial burden for districts that already are strapped. That price tag alone should be considered before anyone starts to consider the merits of asking a school board to arbitrate its entire budget.
Students and communities deserve good schools. Teachers deserve fair compensation and decent health insurance. Repealing the QEO does not achieve those objectives; and worse, it will exacerbate the financial shortfalls school districts already are facing.
Those of us who remember the tumultuous days of the 1980s are not easily swayed by rhetoric and would urge those who advocate a repeal of the QEO to rethink their position and develop strategies that enhance educational opportunities for students.
- John H. Ashley is executive director of the Wisconsin Association of School Boards, a nonprofit association that provides information and services to Wisconsin school boards in the area of school law and policymaking, bargaining, legislation and leadership development.
