State teacher salary scale for property tax reform

I have been reading many articles in the Bangor Daily News concerning the issue of property tax reform looming in the distance as the November election draws near. There seems to be little consensus as to the best plan. I have worked in education as a classroom teacher for 18 years and would like to offer another alternative.

The problem, as I understand it, is the cost of education is becoming prohibitive for local town budgets. Property taxes provide the primary funding for schools and local landowners, which are barely able to keep up with the increases in their local budget, as school costs are constantly spiraling upward.

My proposal is to take the teacher salary line out of the local budget and place it in the state budget. Instead of teachers being paid directly by the towns, they would be paid on a state salary scale from state revenues. Though this would be funded through state taxes, the burden would be spread more evenly over all areas of the state. With the advent of the Maine Learning Results, teachers throughout the state are responsible for the same curriculum and should by the same token be paid equally for their efforts and experience.

Why would this be helpful? First of all, it would lower municipal budgets. The largest part of the local education budget, teacher salaries, would disappear. Towns would maintain control of their local schools; they would be responsible for transportation, buildings, supplies and other parts of the budget. However, with the teacher salary line omitted, the share of the budget dedicated to education would be considerably smaller. Property taxes would automatically be lowered.

How would teachers feel about this change? From my point of view, it can’t come soon enough. Every locality in Maine has a different pay scale. If a teacher happens to work in a low-paying district, this can be very unfair. All teachers are required to meet the Maine Learning Results and are working very hard toward this end.

However, teachers in lower-paying districts with more than 20 years of experience may make $36,000 while those in more wealthy districts with the same experience may be paid $48,000 more a year. That’s a huge discrepancy for the same work. This is compounded when retirement hits. Retirement benefits are based on a teacher’s last three highest years of salary. It’s easy to compute: the teacher in the higher-paying district will have a much better retirement than the teacher in the lower-paying district. I question the equality of such a system. A state salary scale would go a long way to ensure quality in teachers’ salaries.

In addition to this, I believe it would lift a great burden from the shoulders of administrators. First of all, superintendents and school boards would not have to spend hours in lengthy teacher negotiation sessions. It would all be done with one teacher bargaining unit and one state board. Administrators would be much more likely to fill teaching vacancies no matter what area of the state they hail from because salaries would be equalized. If local districts wished to add incentives above and beyond the salary scale to attract and keep teachers, it should be their personal option.

Creating a state teacher salary scale would be one move toward property tax reform. It would also benefit teachers, administrators and school systems. Is this an idea worth considering in the property tax debate?

Mary L. Seward is a teacher and lives in Gouldsboro.