2010.12.08
VEA wants state to help fund pay raises for teachers
As Virginia emerges from its budget crisis, the Virginia Education Association wants to the General Assembly to do its share to fund 3 percent pay raises for teachers and other school employees covered by the state’s Standards of Quality.
The VEA held a press conference this morning in Richmond to promote its cause. The raise would cost the state $110 million at a time when revenue growth remains sluggish and Gov. Bob McDonnell is trying to direct scarce resources to other programs such as higher education and economic development.
“In the grand scheme of things, it’s not a lot of money,” said VEA President Kitty Boitnott.
Boitnott said teachers and support personnel have gone three years without state support for raises and many are working for less because of pay cuts, furloughs and health insurance increases. State government workers last week received a one-time, 3 percent pay bonus funded with surplus revenue from the last fiscal year. But McDonnell has indicated that annual state employee pay raises won’t resume anytime soon.
The governor will unveil proposed amendments to the two-year budget next week in a presentation to the General Assembly’s key money committees. It’s unclear whether the budget plan will include further cuts to public schools.
“The governor’s sister is a public school teacher in Amherst, and all of his children graduated from public high schools in the Commonwealth,” McDonnell spokeswoman Stacey Johnson said. “He sincerely appreciates and applauds Virginia’s teachers and school employees for the crucial work they do every day in preparing our students to compete and succeed in the global economy.”
“The final decision on what school teachers make is ultimately one made by local governments,” Johnson added. “While the state can help fund a pay increase, it is local governments that actually authorize it. The governor will review this proposal in the days ahead, recognizing that any action made at the state level would have to be coordinated with local governments.”
In this economy no raises for any govt. employees!
Comment by Jack Mcguire — December 8, 2010 @ 8:17 pm
What happened to that 2.9 mil. for Rke. teacher bonus that’s sitting in Richmond?
Comment by Lisa2 — December 9, 2010 @ 4:10 am
Teacher unions are like all other unions…greedy, greedy, greedy.
Comment by jogger — December 9, 2010 @ 6:12 am
What organization, public, private, political party, union, etc… doesn’t do what’s in the group’s best interest? Isn’t that the nature of the beast?
Comment by Kevin — December 9, 2010 @ 9:21 am
Critics, please recognize that in many VA localities, the public school employees are near or at the top in numbers of wage-earners for the locality. A modest raise gives that large group the opportunity to spend and boost the local economy.
Comment by Ron — December 9, 2010 @ 10:44 am
$110 mil? Sorry VEA, We can’t spend what We don’t have. You’re just gonna have to tighten that belt for another year.
“In the grand scheme of things, it’s not a lot of money,” Uh, yes it is.
Comment by Cold n P — December 9, 2010 @ 6:52 pm
Ron, I understand what you are saying but $110 million still sounds like a lot “in the grand scheme of things”. I’m sure that McDonnell will give very honest and sincere consideration to the request, but he will need to base his decision on all needs of the Commonwealth. If it can be done, I’m sure he will. I am a retired educator myself and have gone through several years without pay raises; those in public positions are at the mercy of what the collected taxes can provide. If there is not enough revenue, then tough decisions have to be made. I would like to think those decisions are based on what is best for the entire Commonwealth citizenry. Hopefully, educators will receive some kind of raise–as you say, their expenditures can help boost local economy.
Comment by Different Steve — December 9, 2010 @ 6:58 pm
I think we all agree that teachers generally are under-appreciated and deserve to be paid more, and we all probably agree that the state’s budget is tight and not everybody who deserves a raise is going to get one. Does anybody disagree that all of the money Attorney General Coochinelli is spending on suing UVA and suing the federal government would be better spent on teachers’ raises?
Comment by John — December 9, 2010 @ 11:40 pm
#3 Sorry, jogger, that oinking noise you’re hearing is coming from that top 1 percent of Americans.
Comment by gdad — December 10, 2010 @ 8:54 am
. “Does anybody disagree that all of the money Attorney General Coochinelli is spending on suing UVA and suing the federal government would be better spent on teachers’ raises?”
Most teachers have a 4 yr. degree from WhatsamatterU and are making more than they deserve now.
Coochinelli is doing exactly what he should be doing by challenging mandated product purchases forced on the American people.
Comment by Jack Mcguire — December 10, 2010 @ 2:28 pm
jogger, I hope in your little diatribe you’re including the wonderful Chamber Of Commerce!
Comment by B. Johnson — December 10, 2010 @ 8:38 pm
@Jack Mcguire: Where do you get such an ignorant attitude? You and people like you are the reason that it’s hard to get people to be interested in becoming teachers in the first place. . .
Comment by NateH — December 11, 2010 @ 6:40 am
Jack,
Ever been hit by an uninsured motorist? It’s not a pleasant experience, even if nobody gets physically hurt. If you really believe what you say, and you’re not just spouting off to get attention, why don’t you try to get Coochinelli to sue Virginia to stop coercing the purchase of auto insurance?
Your wallet already gets hit by medically-uninsured Virginians every time Uncle Sam takes a cut, to cover those who show up in ERs without insurance. Like it or not, the new law is a good one, and only an ignoramous who thinks teachers are overpaid would be against it.
Comment by John — December 13, 2010 @ 8:52 am
@ Jogger: What teacher unions? We don’t have teacher unions in Virginia.
Comment by John — December 13, 2010 @ 8:58 am
@ Jack:
“If you really believe what you say, and you’re not just spouting off to get attention, why don’t you try to get Coochinelli to sue Virginia to stop coercing the purchase of auto insurance?”
There is a significant difference between auto and health insurance. As you know, driving is optional. In fact, it’s a privilege that can be declined or taken away. Under HCR, that choice is taken away for healthcare.
Some of the other differences between the two types of insurance are problematic for supporters of HCR. For example, if auto insurers can deny or restrict coverage for driving history, why can’t health insurers deny or restrict coverage for health history, and underwriting option specifically eliminated by HCR? If one can stay on his/her parents health policy until the age of 26 (mandated by HCR), why can’t hey do the same for their auto?
There’s certainly a discussion to be had on the topic, but one doesn’t further their on cause by calling opponents ‘an ignoramous’ – especially after bringing up a remarkably flawed analogy.
Comment by Mike — December 13, 2010 @ 11:12 am
Mike,
You’re right about the name-calling; I shouldn’t have done that. My apologies to Jack.
Comment by John — December 13, 2010 @ 1:01 pm
Thanks, John. Speaking of name-calling, I think I called you Jack in my post. Just the first of many typos in my post
Comment by Mike — December 13, 2010 @ 3:03 pm