Illinois District 204 Teachers Strike

December/04/2018 8:28AM
Write Comment
Please follow and like us:

This is an old subject for this blog. Like farmers, teachers have the greatest PR work we witness. The union plucks the heart- strings of the public with hours and poor wages. Farmers use Hollywood to make movies to get better help from the government for the corporate farms.

Test scores have gone down slightly in District 204 for the past four years. But, that means noting to the poor residents who have to foot the bills for wage increases. The state of Illinois has the highest  property taxes in the USA, but that means nothing. The state will go bankrupt in the next 5 years due to public employee pensions, but that means nothing. The US test scores for students when compared to the world are very low, but that means nothing. Teacher wages vs. other vocations are high when compared on an hours worked basis, but that means nothing. Another Illinois resident leaves the state every 5 minutes due to high taxes, but that means nothing. Soon we will be closing and consolidating schools again due to population loss, but that means nothing. Young people graduating with a teaching degree will find it’s better to teach in other states due to high taxes here, but we will just keep raising the pay here to try to attract teachers and that will drive up taxes more, but that means nothing.

See, there is not a bit of truth in the appeal for higher wages and a strike at this point in time. Performance is down, student population is shrinking, pay per hour vs. other occupations is very good, benefits are the best in any occupation(who has pensions anymore ?) and kids are less educated vs. the world for far more money. But, to be realistic with the teacher pay situation is like refusing to save the planet. Worse, who wants those brats on the street while a strike is being settled? Not the media which will pound this down your throat until you pony up some more property taxes.

Here are some previous blogs to support my curmudgeon position.


April/12/2015 5:59AM

Write Comment

Isn’t it interesting that every problem in our educational system can be solved with money. And, no money should ever be spent on charter schools over public schools. Nor should any educational budget be cut. These are rules established by the teacher’s union across this country and supported by every form of media.

In Arizona there are 400,000 empty seats in the state educational system. In front of those empty seats there is a teacher, the seat is heated and cooled every day, and there are administrators, a school board, and all the other costs associated with those empty seats. In the business world consolidations would have occurred years ago. Not in the educational system in America.

Here’s how empty seats are calculated. They say you need 80 sq. ft. per student. If a school is 8,000 sq. ft. it should accommodate 100 students. If there are 80 students in that school it’s holding 20 empty seats. So, the total sq. footage of schools across the state of Arizona is roughly 30,000,000 sq. ft. too big. The new governor, Doug Ducey, a businessman, wants to use the surplus sq. footage to open charter schools and give parents and kids a choice between a charter school, that always seems to generate better results, and a public school than has sinking test performance scores. Then consolidate excess capacity and cut budgets for smaller schools.

Does any of this not make sense? It doesn’t to the teachers union, since they see their numbers shrinking and the dues going down accordingly. They get the protesters out in force. Like 20-30. The TV stations show them from angles that make it look like more than the actual numbers. It’s a big news story. Every night, night after night.

If you have kids and you want them to be well educated, don’t buy this propaganda. Your neighbors are not going to opt for more property taxes. Throwing money at problems that need to be solved, like we did in Detroit for 30 years, doesn’t solve problems.

When placed under the magnifying glass of accountability, teachers may even opt to go to prison like they are in Atlanta, Georgia, where they changed student’s test scores to get higher pay. Superintendents will keep empty desk schools going to keep their jobs. School boards will nod and agree since they have zero incentive to force better test scores or efficient systems. There is no check and balance, and, when one happens, the media tries to make it go away.

How may empty seats do you have in your school district. How much is it hurting the students and how much is it hurting your wallet with higher property taxes? Maybe you should write a letter to your school board representative and ask.


September/11/2012 16:24PM

1 interesting comment, join the discussion


Karen Lewis union President announces Chicago Puclic Schools Strike.


Let’s see if we can understand why Chicago teachers are on strike. They must be child laborers, right?  No. They must be working unreasonable hours, right? No. In fact, that’s a sticking point on labor negotiations. Chicago students have the shortest school day of any big city.

The greedy employer must be making a fortune off the backs of the workers, right? No the City is broke and the residents keep getting property tax increases they can’t afford. Any wage concessions will add more.

The business must be very successful based on the good work of the employees, right? No the business is an abject failure. The employees are not doing the job. Very few students graduate from high school and less than 5% go to college. Test scores are very low. The employees are producing an inferior product.

It’s about the kids, right? No, as Chris Christie said when a teacher pulled that on him in a town hall meeting. ” Don’t try that kids stuff on me. This is about money, pure and simple. Money we don’t have to give you. Accept what we can give or go find another career doing something else, but don’t use the kids to extract money we don’t have.”

The union believes they have the City of Chicago over a barrel. They may be right. Parents are worried that kids on the streets in Chicago may mean dead kids. Charter schools are up and running. Public schools will not open on time. Charter schools are getting kids through high school and into college. Public schools do not.

Will the great Mayor Emanuel crumble under the pressure? Or, will he just convert the entire city into charter schools and let the great striking teachers see what their employment options are in the free market? How did the air traffic controllers do when Reagan did that?

The average teacher in Chicago makes $74,000 a year, the average voter in Chicago makes $35,000.

How do you feel about failing workers demanding more  pay?


September/05/2011 16:54PM

Write Comment



Oh, the indignity of it all. The new mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, wants to add to the school day.  The teacher’s union is up in arms. You would think he had asked for a 25% pay cut. You would think these are boom times when everyone who wants a job can get a job. You would think the Chicago school system must be near the top in performance. You would think the classrooms are overcrowded and there is no budget for anything in Chicago.

But, you would be wrong. The Chicago school system  in near the bottom in the country on test scores and graduation rate. Chicago teachers do a lousy job. Chicago teacher pay is near the top. Classroom size is reasonable. Basically, Chicago teachers are doing a remarkably bad job educating the kids in Chicago. Sure, they have a tough group to teach. But, charter schools and magnet schools get it done.

As for the extended work week. Gee, what profession works a shorter work week and a shorter number of weeks per year. As you will see, on an hourly rate only lawyers make more per hour than teachers.

Aren’t we getting a little tired of teachers and their unions. They hide behind their jobs educating kids and never, never address their performance. They grab every benefit the grateful liberal politicians can give them. They retire earlier and with higher pay and better benefits than all professionals. They have more time off than any profession. They take more extra time off with pay than any profession. (I’m excluding government workers as not being professional enough to considered a profession.)

You better wake up, Chicago teachers and your union. This mayor ain’t buying your story. You are going to get change and this is just the beginning and despite the friendly media, you are wearing out your welcome with public. We are tired of your deplorable job and worse results. We are tired of your constant threats to strike. We think it’s time for new blood and it is going to happen. The  more you whine about a few extra minutes a day, the faster it’s going to happen. With so many people out of work and those who have a job making extra sacrifices to keep it, you are hitting a sour chord.

Here’s a lot of data about teachers.

The typical teacher also has a shorter on-site workday than most other professionals. On average, teachers report being in school for fewer than 38 hours per week. This number rises to 40 hours if largely voluntary after-school activities such as coaching or club sponsorship are included. In fact, language limiting the number of hours that teachers are required to be in school is common in their collective-bargaining agreements, particularly in urban school districts. In the just-expired New York City teachers’ contract, the contractual workday was just 6 hours and 20 minutes (including a 50-minute duty-free lunch). The new contract extends the workday by 20 minutes. In Chicago, the limit is 6 hours and 45 minutes, including a 45-minute duty-free lunch.

Of course, many teachers put in nights and weekends at home grading papers and planning for the next week. However, a job that permits relatively more work at home is typically more attractive (particularly to women with children) than one that requires a similar amount of work time on site. And many other professionals bring their work home as well.

The combination of a shorter workday and work year means that the annual hours on the job for teachers are much shorter than in comparable professions. Consider Figure 1, which shows hourly rates of pay computed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for a variety of occupations. By these calculations, only engineers, architects, and surveyors in private practice and attorneys earn more than teachers on an hourly basis.

The shorter workdays and work year make teaching an attractive occupation to those who wish to balance work and family needs. The shorter hours are especially helpful to women who want both a rewarding career and children, which helps to explain why roughly 75 percent of teachers are women and the share is increasing. An additional plum is that the on-site teaching hours match the schedule of a teacher’s own school-age children. In short, when the kids are at home, so is mom (or dad).

Consider the “sick kid” challenge. In many professions it is very difficult to take unscheduled time off for a sick child or other family emergencies. In teaching, however, the “substitute teacher” solution is a routine part of school life. Indeed, in collective-bargaining negotiations, school administrators frequently complain of excessive absences among teachers. According to a recent U.S. Department of Education survey, during the 1999-2000 school year, 5.2 percent of teachers were absent on any given day on average. That translates into 9.4 days out of a 180-day school year. During the 2000-01 school year in New York City, the annual rate of absences reached 11.3 days per teacher. These rates are much higher than in other executive or professional employment. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the absentee rate for managerial and professional employees is just 1.7 percent of annual hours.

Teaching is also family friendly in the sense that little or no out-of-town travel is required for successful job performance. Teachers may choose to attend out-of-town conferences, but such travel is unusual and not a condition of employment. Although I am not aware of any systematic data collected on this topic, out-of-town travel seems to be commonplace for many young professionals.

The expansion of opportunities for women during the past half-century is supposed to have lessened the attraction of teaching. And yes, the earnings of college-educated women in other fields have grown faster than the earnings of teachers in recent decades. However, the mix of nonteaching jobs that college-educated women hold has changed as well. In 1960, 58 percent of college-educated women not employed as teachers worked as secretaries or other clerical workers, and only 13 percent were “managers.” By 1990 the clerical share had fallen to 30 percent while the share of managers increased to 35 percent (as did the shares of lawyers, accountants, and doctors). This shift from clerical to managerial and professional employment resulted in an increase in nonteaching earnings, but it also meant longer workdays and work weeks, greater responsibility (and stress), and, probably, less flexibility compared with teaching.

The bottom line is that teaching remains a job that makes it easier for parents to reconcile a career and family. Consequently we would expect female teachers to have more children—which is exactly what we see: among college-educated women aged 40 and younger, the average teacher had 2.1 children, versus 1.7 for other occupations. Of course, some of this difference may simply reflect the fact that teaching attracts women who like children and who would have been predisposed to have more children anyway. However, the fact remains that teaching is a profession that makes it less costly for these women to act on their preferences.

Figure 1

Starting Salaries

The most reliable data on pay and benefits for nonteachers are collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Its economists and statisticians have a well-deserved reputation for maintaining very high standards for accurate and objective data collection on wages, benefits, labor force, and other economic data. Yet the AFT also presents tables and charts on earnings for new college graduates that rely on data collected by a private organization, the National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE). Several times a year, NACE solicits reports on salary offers (not earnings) to graduating students. The AFT compares data from these NACE reports with scheduled starting salaries for teachers. In releasing the 2002 report, the AFT made much of the fact that “for new teachers, the $28,986 average beginning salary lagged far behind starting salary offers in other fields for new college graduates.” By comparison, the AFT says, accounting graduates were offered an average starting salary of $40,779; sales/marketing majors, $40,033; computer-science majors, $49,749; and engineers, $50,033 (see Figure 2).

While these NACE data apparently have some value to placement officers on college campuses (who pay the hefty subscription fee), they almost certainly overestimate the earnings of nonteachers. First, these data represent salary offers to a very small sample of the total number of college graduates. The 2001-02 report, for example, was based on only 2,600 offers to students in fewer than 120 higher-education institutions. More important, this sample of offers is likely to result in a misleading estimate of the earnings of all college graduates, since only large businesses or employers are likely to send recruiting teams to campus. Most small colleges do not submit reports to NACE. At a large state flagship institution such as mine, the University of Missouri-Columbia, only the business and engineering schools report job offers to NACE. Moreover, for the Missouri business school, the number of graduates far exceeds the number of job offers reported by the placement office.

The AFT’s data on starting pay for teachers must also be treated with some caution. Not all states collect such data, in which case the AFT estimates teachers’ starting pay. In the most recent report, the AFT had to estimate the starting salary in 17 states. However, researchers have no way of judging the accuracy of the AFT’s estimates, because they failed to document their methods.

A much more accurate picture of the relative pay of recent college graduates can be gleaned from Bureau of Labor Statistics national survey data on annual earnings. I pooled three years (1999 through 2001) of March Current Population Survey data and computed full-time annual earnings for college graduates under 30 years of age whose highest degree is a bachelor’s or master’s degree. I made no adjustments for hours or weeks of work. Not surprisingly, nonteachers earn more than teachers (see Figure 2): on average, 32 percent more (nonteachers earned $36,996, versus $28,156 for teachers). However, the pool of nonteachers has many more very high earners than the pool of teachers, which pulls the average up. Thus a more representative indicator of the typical teacher and nonteacher is median earnings. In this case, the gap in earnings between nonteachers and teachers falls to just 10 percent ($32,000 versus $29,000). The latter gap is readily explained by the shorter workday and work year for teachers.

Figure 2

Fringe Benefits

Neither the AFT nor the NEA makes any adjustments for the fringe benefits associated with teaching in a public school, thus masking an important part of total compensation. Unfortunately, published data do not permit precise comparisons of fringe (nonsalary) benefits for teachers and other professionals. For example, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports fringe benefits for other professions, which include paid vacations. But nearly all teachers are on nine- or ten-month contracts and thus do not receive paid vacations. In addition, due to idiosyncrasies in the federal Social Security law, in some states teachers are included in state pension plans as well as Social Security, while in others they are not. Published Bureau of Labor Statistics data on benefits for “teachers” employed by state and local governments also combine full-time postsecondary teachers with K-12 teachers. This makes the comparison more difficult, but since public K-12 teachers account for more than 80 percent of the combined total, the data still provide some insight into the comparative benefits of teachers.

Employers’ largest fringe benefit cost is retirement plans. Virtually all public school teachers are included in traditional defined-benefit plans in which teachers receive pension payments according to a defined schedule on retirement. These differ from defined-contribution plans, like the TIAA-CREF plans in most public and private colleges, in which the retirement benefits depend on investment earnings and saving rates and may vary from employee to employee. Public school teachers become eligible for pension benefits (or “vest”) in these plans after five to seven years of employment. The contributions to these systems made by school districts or states are substantial. And because of the high turnover rates of teachers in their early years, these defined benefit plans in practice transfer wealth from young to more senior teachers.

The result is a system that permits teachers to retire earlier than they would if they were covered by Social Security or a conventional pension plan. For example, in the Missouri teacher pension system, a teacher who began teaching at age 22 and served continuously could retire at age 55 with 84 percent of her annual salary. In addition, her pension payments would be adjusted for inflation on an annual basis. Regular cost-of-living adjustments are unusual in private-sector defined-benefit programs. This teacher could also take employment in a new job and still collect her full pension benefits as long as the new employer was not a Missouri public school district.

National data show a similar pattern. In the 1994-95 Schools and Staffing Surveys, both male and female teachers who retired by the next school year averaged 59 years of age at retirement. By comparison, new retirees collecting Social Security retirement benefits have average retirement ages of 63.7 (men) and 63.6 (women).

The second largest fringe benefit cost (as a percentage of payroll) is health insurance. Health insurance coverage for public school teachers is nearly universal (more than 99 percent). The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that health insurance benefits amount to 7.1 percent of hourly compensation costs for teachers (including postsecondary), but only 5.1 percent for professionals in private business. These same data suggest that the benefits provided to teachers are attractive relative to the private sector. For example, for individual policies, only 20 percent of health insurance plans for professional or managerial employees in medium and large private-sector firms are fully paid by the employer. The comparable share for teachers is 51 percent. Only 10 percent of medium and large private firms pay the full premium for family policies, compared with 29 percent in public school systems.

Figure 3Private-Sector Teachers

Understandably enough, in comparing the salaries of public school teachers with those of other professionals, the AFT does not make what may be the most relevant comparison: between public and private school teachers. Perhaps this is why the levels of pay in private schools play such a small role in discussions of compensation in public schools. In areas other than K-12 education, personnel managers routinely use pay and benefits in the private sector as a benchmark in setting government rates. This holds for professional jobs such as lawyers, accountants, and nurses. Indeed, one important function of the compensation data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics is to provide private-sector as well as state and local benchmark data for federal wage setting. Public higher-education administrators are well aware of the level and structure of compensation for faculty in private institutions.

But public school districts rarely consult private school data in making their compensation decisions, even though 12 percent of teachers are employed in private schools and the two sectors compete for teachers. Mobility between the two sectors is extensive: 36 percent of full-time private and 13 percent of full-time public school teachers report some teaching experience in the other sector.

There are, however, some legitimate objections to public-private comparisons. First, many private schools have a religious orientation and are staffed by teachers of the same religious denomination. To the extent that such schools are advancing a religious mission, their teachers may be willing to work for less out of a religious commitment. Second, private schools are generally more selective in admissions than public schools, and, on average, their students are from households with higher socioeconomic status. To the extent that this results in better-behaved and more academically motivated students, it makes for a more attractive teaching environment in private schools.

Figure 3 compares public and private teacher salaries in a manner that attempts to address these concerns. First, I included earnings data only for teachers in nonsectarian private schools. In addition, I excluded private schools that have a special emphasis (special education, Montessori, Waldorf) and focused on schools that most closely resemble traditional public schools in mission. I also controlled for teachers’ experience, gender, education level, region, and urban or rural status. As the graph shows, teacher pay in these private schools is consistently below that of public school teachers. Starting pay in private schools begins at 78 percent that of public schools, rises to 92 percent of public school pay by a teacher’s 12th year, and declines thereafter.

Even with the above adjustments, a critic might argue that private school teaching is not comparable with public school teaching since the socioeconomic status of private school students is higher. In order to make the public schools more comparable with private, I excluded more than 90 percent of the sample of public school teachers and retained only public school teachers in suburban schools with little poverty (fewer than 5 percent eligible for free and reduced-price lunch). With these new criteria in place, the results look quite different. Interestingly, the shape of the pay function remains the same, but simply shifts down. Private school teachers now start at salaries that are 76 percent of their public school counterparts. This increases to 87 percent by their 12th year and declines thereafter. These results suggest that compared with the private sector, public schools overreward high levels of experience. Why do they do this? In a recent study, Dale Ballou and I found that public school districts that are unionized and have a large share of high-seniority teachers are more likely to “backload” salary increases by adding additional steps to salary schedules or raising the rewards for seniority.

Benefits are lower in private schools as well. The median nonsectarian private school reports fringe costs (including Social Security) as 18 percent of payroll, while the comparable figure for public schools is 21.5 percent.
Table 1

Salary Trends

Computing the change in mean teacher salaries from year to year can paint a misleading picture of the average teacher’s situation. The reason is that public school salaries are set by schedules laid out in the teachers’ contract. These pay schedules, which apply to all the teachers in a school district, base salaries on a teacher’s years of experience and number of hours of graduate credits or graduate degrees. (See Table 1 for a typical salary schedule, from the Chicago Public Schools.)

When school districts raise the pay of teachers, they typically increase all the cells of these schedules by a fixed percentage, say 2 percent. Thus, if the education and experience of the average teacher in the district did not change from one year to the next, then average teacher pay would increase by 2 percent as well. However, that does not mean a typical teacher experienced a 2 percent pay increase between the two years. In fact, most teachers (except those who have “topped out” on the schedule) will receive a pay increase that is larger than 2 percent.

For example, a new teacher with a bachelor’s degree hired in Chicago in the fall of 1999 earned $32,561. Between the fall of 1999 and the fall of 2002, the average starting pay for Chicago teachers rose a modest 6.1 percent. However, by the fall of 2002, that teacher hired in 1999 is now in her fourth year of teaching and her pay will have increased to $40, 071, or 23.1 percent in three years. If the 2003-04 salary schedule again rises by 2 percent, as it has over the past several years, then at the start of the 2003 school year her salary will have grown by 31.1 percent. If she earns a master’s by that time, as many teachers do, her pay will have increased by 38.6 percent in four years—an average annual growth rate of 8.5 percent.

Given the steep tilt of salary schedules, changes in the experience mix of the workforce can be an important factor affecting changes in average teacher pay from one year to the next. This experience-composition problem also arises in analyzing national trends in average teacher pay, since many school districts are hiring more inexperienced teachers in response to rising enrollments, falling class sizes, and the retirement of older, more highly compensated teachers. According to U.S. Department of Education data, the median number of years of full-time teaching experience for public school teachers fell from 14 during the 1994-95 school year to 12 in 1999-00. Such a decline in the seniority mix of teachers tends to artificially mask the growth of average teacher pay and to bias comparisons of growth in teacher pay with pay in other professions, where the workforce is typically aging. It also makes simple cross-section comparisons of average pay between school districts or states problematic. We cannot be sure whether average pay is 10 percent higher in state A than in state B because salary schedules are higher in A or the teachers are older.

Trends in teachers’ salaries will also understate trends in teachers’ compensation if the costs of fringe benefits are increasing faster than salaries. Health insurance is an obvious example. Bureau of Labor Statistics data show that insurance costs (primarily health) represent 5 percent of hourly compensation costs for private-sector professional specialty occupations and managers, whereas for teachers they represent 7 percent of compensation costs.

Between 1980 and 1998 private-sector wage and salary costs grew by 104 percent, whereas costs for health insurance grew by 337 percent (even after widely publicized efforts by private-sector employers to restrain costs by introducing copayments and joining HMOs). Unfortunately there are no comparable data on the rise in insurance costs for public school districts. However, even assuming that public school districts made equally strenuous efforts at cost containment and held their health insurance cost increases to 337 percent, to the extent that health insurance is a larger share of payroll costs for public schools than for other private-sector workers, the relative compensation of teachers has increased. In short, in comparing the earnings of teachers and nonteachers, one cannot examine only trends in salary and assume that fringe benefits have been constant.

As states and districts attempt to meet the “highly qualified” teacher requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act, it will become increasingly important to gather more complete and accurate data on the relative pay and benefits of teachers. These data should also be disaggregated to reflect the fact that teacher labor markets are local or regional, and not national in scope. Attention should also be paid to differences in the opportunities that teachers face in the world outside teaching: a high-school physics teacher’s potential earnings are not the same as an elementary-school teacher’s. Policy discussions in this area have relied almost exclusively on the salary data collected by the teacher unions. A valuable step forward would be for the National Center for Education Statistics, in collaboration with the Bureau of Labor Statistics, to expand data collection on the relative pay and benefits of public school teachers so that states and school districts can have objective, arms-length data on this important issue.

Michael Podgursky is chairman of the department of economics at the University of Missouri-Columbia

April/08/2018 13:40PM

2 interesting comments, join the discussion

I’ve been in Arizona for over three months. Every day for that time the newspaper, the local TV stations, and social media have beat the drum for raising teachers’ pay in the state. That cartoon says it all. Teachers are only asking for a 20% raise. Really.

I spent 35 years in the private sector. Here’s how it works there. Raises in pay are based on performance. Non performance results in firing. According to student test scores vs. the world there is an abundance of non-performance.

How would that 20% pay raise be distributed in AZ? By seniority and across the board. How many non-performing teachers have been dismissed. None. In Scottsdale they are firing a superintendent of schools with a year left on her contract. Conflict of interest. The last they fired came from my second home community. He was fired there and hired by Scottsdale, fired here and hired by Las Vegas. Three pensions, two severance payments. They are paying this woman $150K to leave. Do you believe there is one ounce of business acumen in any school system in this country?

So, if I read Benson’s cartoon, it says, “I’m not doing my best for my students, but if you pay me more, I will try harder.” When I was a student we had poor teachers. They taught for 30-40 years. When my kids were in school they had poor teachers. Some are still teaching. My grandkids have poor teachers. Some will teach for 30 more years. The cartoon hits all the points on the emotional issues with teachers. We have sons and daughters, sisters and brothers, mothers and fathers who taught or teach. If you are really good you are not rewarded for that effort or ability. If you are really bad, you are paid the same. It’s the same thing we have in the Department of Motor Vehicles. Soon, like a union jobs with zero accountability, mediocrity prevails.

Pubic pay, benefits, and pensions will ultimately bankrupt states, beginning with Illinois. Retired school superintendents there average $275K a year in pensions with Cadillac benefits. Coming from real estate taxes that have driven hoards out of the state. Still, the number of school districts are the most per student in the nation.

The greatest lobbyist in the country is the media. They want higher teacher pay and throw millions toward pushing that agenda. That’s how Illinois got where they are.

You want to buy the idea the cartoon depicts, buy it. But, I can assure you that at some point your property taxes will be higher than your mortgage, like Illinois, and you will be moving. So will the teachers when they get their pensions. To Florida where there is no state income tax, property tax is low(teacher pay low), and weather is nice.

When the calculus for doing this is mentioned, not the emotion, it is because AZ teachers are paid less than states like Illinois. Never mentioned is their property taxes are lower than Illinois by more than 50%. Just think about that.

Please follow and like us:

Other Articles You Might Enjoy:

Leave a Reply