U-46 teachers should say 'yes' to good deal

When Elgin School District U-46's 2,400 teachers vote by secret ballot Oct. 15 on a proposed three-year contract, we urge them to say "yes." The deal, already tentatively approved by the school board, was OK'd by union leaders in a close 73-65 vote, making rank-and-file approval less than predictable.

Teachers surely must recognize that the pay raises in the proposed package are not just fair, but excellent, given the current economy and the district's finances. Including across-the-board raises, step increases for time in service and education, and retirement contributions by the district, the average pay hike in the first year is 6.1 percent. Increases in the second and third would range from a low of 4.4 percent to 5.7 percent, depending on the CPI.

With many taxpayers facing small hikes, freezes or cuts in pay, declining benefits or lost jobs, this deal should be seen in the big picture for what it is -- generous enough to deserve approval. That there has been little public response to those numbers would suggest the public generally finds it fair to all parties.

One area of contention is large class sizes, a legitimate concern in terms of teacher stress and one shared by many U-46 parents. But teachers must understand that they can have these generous raises or they can have more teachers to help reduce class size, but the district's finances won't permit both. The availability of a classroom for those additional teachers isn't a given, either, meaning additional busing or mobiles could be required. And regular class sizes influence the size of bilingual class sizes. The ripples are many and costly.

Changes in teacher evaluations are another point of contention, but the changes seem to bring more objectivity and collaboration between evaluator and teacher. They seem to have been well-researched and provide for employees' future goals to be made part of the process. Those changes seem beneficial to us.

Though health care benefits are not part of the contract, teachers were concerned that their family budgets must take both the contract and health insurance into consideration. Health numbers were not available when the contract details were initially released. That information has now reached teachers and should make the issue of less concern.

Much of the emotion around this contract likely is a reaction to the many changes teachers have faced in a short time period. On-leave Superintendent Connie Neale's contract and benefits, found exorbitant by nearly everyone but her and the board, surely adds to the unrest.

But multiple financial wrongs will not make a right, and teachers know from experience they will be the first to suffer if the district slips into financial chaos again. They also now enjoy the public's respect for having absorbed dramatic changes and still delivering improved test scores. Generally viewed these days as participants, not malcontents, teachers surely don't want that perception to change.

But the public disdain now reserved for Neale and the school board would likely settle quickly enough on teachers should they insult taxpayers by rejecting a deal most fair.