"Full of money grabbing thieves"...

And so it begins...

But, I will ask the same question (with a variation) that I ask when this sort of stuff comes up...

When you want them to spend less, what specifically do you want them to cut that you or in this case your children utilize? Do you want sports cut? Activities cut? Larger class sizes?

They waited until THIS school year to change school times to maximize bus scheduling & minimize cost. Why wasn't that done years ago? They changed from block scheduling in the high schools & then announced that it costs more. Block scheduling is more like college. It seems like decisions are made & then the budget is considered instead of looking at the total cost of a decision before its put into motion. We moved from district 204 in Naperville to Oswego 8 years ago. The first thing I noticed was the amount of excess support staff in Oswego compared to Naperville schools. Just in the office alone there were 3 extra people that our old school didn't have. We don't have the wealth that Naperville has to sustain this budget. Naperville does, and yet they still use their money more wisely than Oswego.

Well that is interesting because if you look at the state school report cards and compare Oswego 308 and Napervile 203 (203 has one more school that 308) you will find 308 spends a smaller % of it's money on administration and support services than 203 does.

We do spend more on bond interest as a % however...

http://iirc.niu.edu/CompareDistricts.aspx?source=Finances&source2=Expenditure_Percentages&level=d&districtID=24047308026

@HhenryT...while 308 spends a smaller percentage overall, what are the people numbers. these are what will increase the overall numbers overtime. If 204 is averaging 100k for 10 people while 308 is averaging 50k for 20 people, those will reverse in time as people leave and less expensive fokls are hired.

The thing is that over time a school system and it's associated labor unions have learned that parents will give and give "for the kids" regardless. That's how and why we are where we are.

@Tim...I believe you have to amend the Illinois Constitution to do this. All but Chicago are Constitutionally bound to pay 100% and then its to a State managed account.

Martin,
No, you would not have to amend the constitution to do this. This is a benefit given out by the school board. The loophole they are exploiting, is that it 'technically' is deducted from the teachers paycheck(not salary), but this extra amount that would be deducted from them is first given to them ON TOP OF salary.

Let's use the private sector as an example;
You get $100/hr, so you would need to pay $9.40 out of that to your pension. Leaving you with a real salary of $90.60/hr. If you then went to your employer and demanded that they pay this $9.40 for you, instead of it coming out of your top line salary, your employer would then be paying your contribution, and you would be making $100/hr in salary, while having the company(taxpayers) pay for your deductions.

Simply changing the labor agreement to remove this clause, and make the amount come right out of salary still satisfies the requirements of the state constitution, as the 9.4% is still being paid. It's just a matter of where that money comes from in the first place... you as a taxpayer, or the person collecting the eventual pension. It does not change the pension plan one bit, but would eliminate every single deficit in every single school district if enacted.

"Ayar, so teachers should be exempt from market volatility but the rest of the world should not? Most, if not all 401Ks are self directed which means they can put it in safe investments isolated from market volatily". "Everybody seems to want a free lunch and doesn't want to take ownership for stupid decisions".@Concerned, no, I'm a different animal than that. I think private industry should consider re-introducing a basic pension plan, which can be built on. But bear in mind, you're not just picking on teachers if you're talking pensions. You're talking fire-fighters who try to save your life in your house, you're talking policemen who walk the beat on your behalf to keep you safe at night. I think *they* earn their pensions too.

You can not do a mandatory modification of the current pension system of any significance for those already in the plan, it is generally felt a part of the state constitution will not allow it.

If you went to a 401k like system, then assuming you would have an employer contribution the state (or whomever) would likely be bound to make the contribution. The state not generally making the contribution to the pension funds it was/is supposed to has cause a big chunk of the pension problem in this state.

The guy from Kahn Academy does a good job explaining what is what in this video (it's an education site mostly known for math videos, not a political site)

http://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/american-civics/v/illinois-pension-obligations

Actually, there are multiple problems, one double dipping within our state. The other is the calcuations on the states required contribution. Because you have a "defined benefit", you have a cost that needs to be met regardless of how much it increases (e.g. medical expenses), AND the state is required to make any shortfall of the investements made by the Pension Fund. So if the Pension decides it can't earn as much as it thought because the market takes a dump (jeez when would that ever happen), the state is required to INCREASE its payment to make up the difference. Cindy is right . . . the whole system needs to move to a "defined contribution." Yes, that means the state MUST make its payments, but it's not up to the state to cover crazy medical cost increases or makeup for bad investments. However much has been contributed during your career is yours to take when you retire . . . spend as you see fit. Hmmmm, I wonder when private sector will do this . . . oh yeah, they did it years ago even before the economic melt down.

....and when kindly little Mrs. Leibowitz who taught little emmy's kindergarten class is outside the local wal-mart panning for pennies because of the oh so riches she gets from the 401-ripoff, which *has worked so well during the great crash of 2008* that a lot of retired folk had to go back to work, you'll be feelin proud that you put her on the 401-K's plan. It doesn't work so well for Teachers, who by the way don't get social security. How about instead we talk about putting the Administrators and our State Elected Employees on them first for about 20 years and see how well it works for them first ? [no "instant millionaire" multi-state superintendents that way at least]

Ayar, so teachers should be exempt from market volatility but the rest of the world should not? Most, if not all 401Ks are self directed which means they can put it in safe investments isolated from market volatily. You invest in the stock market, and it takes a dump, you suffer the consequences. You invest in something safe (say US Treasury Debt) then you don't risk your principal. Everybody seems to want a free lunch and doesn't want to take ownership for stupid decisions.

Well Lisa, lets look at your questions...

But, didn't this district hire a new superintendent for more money than the last superintendent?

Yep, totally true.

Construction at the high schools (the Titanic on the hill)...

Well, we actually voted to build a third high school, but instead the board decided to spend less by expanding the existing schools (why did they do that, well because they were going to be filled beyond capacity).

The middle school...

Yep, they opened a building they build as a middle school and are using it as a middle school, we could have continued to have the previous middle schools significantly cramped and had a new building sitting unused. Yeah that would have saved some money. Of course we would have the existing middle schools significantly more crowded, but we could have send.

"How about holding off on school growth":

Well school growth is dictated by student population more than anything else, so unless you want schools to have higher class sizes (we average 26.7 at the 5th grade level) and these kids are getting older and will be headed to high school. So unless you want to add something to the water, there isn't much we can do about school growth.

Since you don't have kids in the district, maybe you missed the info that the current high schools are at capacity, with increased class sizes coming up. Maybe you didn't know that total enrollment grew over 5% this year compared to last year. You probably didn't hear that New Traughber holds 350 more students than old Traughber did, which needed $15M (I believe) in renovations to meet current standards. *THAT* is why you see construction.

I'm as bothered by the high tax bill as anyone else, but making blanket statements about current construction, cutting 20% across the board, and changing pensions to a 401k plan just shows lack of understanding of the real issues the district is facing.

Yes, but good luck on getting Springfield to approve that one. The teachers unions have a good lock on making sure that legislation doesn't go anywhere. Also, the school districts don't want to loose their funding so they fight that proposal too. The private school industry would over take the public eduation in a year if it happened as all the talented kids who want to learn would leave the public schools that have to cater to everyone with their individual lesson plans.

ahhh, DB. Since we live in a "of COURSE both parents work - what are you, a lazy liberal ?" society, not all people can't really AFFORD to do the homeschool gig, and private is $more$ $expensive$ . I doubt a voucher would carry over the correct amount [here's 10 bucks, buddy - oh yeah, we charge extra for anything - hot lunch ? does your kid know how to work the microwave in the corner ? there ya go. Teach WHAT? THAT? nah. here's OUR curriculum]. No thanks, at least there's SOME accountability in our current setup. No thanks, bubba. Our boys downstate got enough of a win after privatizing lotto. There went some jobs and tax dollars. *sigh*.

Hunt Club-
"The private school industry would over take the public eduation in a year if it happened as all the talented kids who want to learn would leave the public schools that have to cater to everyone with their individual lesson plans."

As a mom to a kid with an IEP, this statement bothers me. My child has talent, he also has a learning disability. He wants to learn, he just has a very difficult time and needs to learn in a different way. Every kid has their own talent, some just need that something extra an IEP can provide. Your statement basically says that a child with an IEP is not talented and doesn't want to learn. I find that rude and disrespectful. Oh and private schools have kids with learning disabilities as well and "cater (as you said)" to their needs too.

That said, I am for lowering taxes in any way that doesn't take away from our kids. An extra $2.50-$8 a month doesn't bother me if it means the kids are getting the education they need and deserve. I understand how this is bothersome to most (and especially those without kids) and wish there was a way to recoup some of that, perhaps in registration fees or something, but I have no idea how any of that works. I'll leave that up to the "experts."

Tim is absolutely correct. The teachers contribute absolutely nothing towards their pension TRS. The Plainfield School District is the same and cost's Plainfield nearly $12 million annually. Downers Grove is one of the only few high schools in the state where the teachers actualy contribute to the TRS. It's time to have these labor agreements changed.

Tim...In districts that do not make the 9.4% pension payment for the teachers they often have higher base salaries. For example, a first year teacher with a bachelors in Oswego receives a base salary of $36,240 + TRS payment which totals $40,000. Since you have applauded Downers Grove for cutting out 'perks', we can use DG as an example. In Downers Grove 99 a 1st year teacher with bachelors makes $48,981 salary and the teacher sends the check to TRS themselves (so overall they get nearly $9,000 more in compensation than in D308). Downers Grove District 58 also receives more in total compensation then D308. Would you rather Oswego has teachers send in the checks and keep compensation the same? Or are you saying teachers should receive only that base salary ($36,240 in the example) and take a 9.4% decrease in total compensation? You are attempting to paint a picture like Oswego teachers are getting a free ride (or 'perks' or 'padding to the contract' or whatever terms you choose to use) when in reality the only difference is who sends in the check. Downers Grove pays more tax dollars for its teachers. Quit trying to paint D308 teachers as villains.

They brought in a section 8 apartment complex at Mill and Orchard Roads if that counts as progress. The complex will be called Mill Street Station.

Dave, could you post a link to that article. Thanks.

Parents do pay for their kids and you aren't making any allies by continuing to put people down like that. What about all the taxes I paid before I had kids or kids in school? They went to support other families and that is fine. Now, I am guessing here, your kids aren't in school anymore.

Katt,

I fully agree with you, I'm in same boat. However, Oswego secretly approved a low income apartment complex next to my house and is even giving them a discount on their water rate. My home value will be dropping quicker. Check out coments under the Mill Street Station apartments.

You are not missing anything. It is what it is. It's a perk that has been in place in education for many, many years at various levels. At one point in time, teachers in some area districts received thousands of dollars (more than this 6%) in each of their last few years. It was designed to provide a boost to their pension calculations. No question it helped those final figures but probably not as much as one would believe. There were several other options years back that teachers could get out with that boosted their payments. The idea was to have teachers making a good amount of money at the upper end of the scale retire and then the district would add roughly two new teachers at a lesser salary.

Slowly, districts are doing away with this 6% perk. 6% is the highest it can be by state law by the way. Other districts have a lesser amount. Some provide this perk for as many as four years.

No, it's not based on anything other than being ready to retire.

In the past, annual raises in many districts with step and lane were usually pushing 3.5 - 5% yearly anyway. By taking the 6%, you do NOT receive the raise to which you would normally be entitled to, only that 6%. Many times instead of a 6% windfall, it would total just an extra 1.5 - 2% because part of the advance would have happened anyway.

Oswego's package is probably mid to upper range in terms of generosity from what I know of surrounding districts.

Actually, this is part of the issue and done so that the pensions are higher. We need to address this and it will save a lot without really hurting anyone.

I gave you a direct link to the actual legally binding labor agreement for you to read, that describes exactly how this is being done. In this table, the salary is listed as 'base', the extra pension perks being paid to them are listed as 'base+TRS', because they are being GIVEN that money by the board(taxpayers), and THEN having it printed on their paychecks as a deduction. Base+TRS is the amount of the final check, but 'base' is the actual salary. You will notice that base+TRS ALWAYS is equal to base*9.4%. What you are looking at, is a paycheck that is padded with the extra pension payment being given to the employee, THEN the same amount the full paycheck is bumped up, is exactly the amount that is 'deducted' for a pension payment.

This is a very real, and very expensive loophole. The fact that you don't understand it, even when looking right at it, shows the lengths the union has gone to in order to hide this benefit payout.

To counter that, you gave... a description of a paystub, that nobody but you can see.

It is depressing that you are married to an educator, and don't understand why what you just posted in no way supports your claim..

So Tim would like a 9.4% decrease in teacher compensation. The Board pays the 9.4% to TRS in lieu of more base salary. Taking away this 9.4% from D308 teachers compensation would put starting salary at right around 35k. Is that what you are suggesting Tim?

Starting salary stays EXACTLY the same. The only thing that changes, is the group who will eventually be the one collecting the pension, is the one who is paying for it.

Now, if you feel your teachers are worth raising their salaries 9.4% in order to pay for this change, then I am fully supportive of putting that to a vote. Let the board chose if they want to fund education, or fund someone elses pension, or raise taxes to pay for both.

The way it is currently done, through what can only be described as back door funding, is being done to keep it hidden. Just look at these comments, and you will see people who didn't even know it was happening.

So you are asking for a 9.4% decrease in teacher compensation. And trying to say it in a way that makes it seem like teachers are part of some scam. But for some reason you refuse to phrase it in a way that shows you are asking for a 9.4% decrease in teacher compensation. Once again, the districts (comparable to 308) who do not pick up the 9.4% offset this by offering base salaries that are higher to cover the difference (and allow teachers to send in the check to TRS out base salary instead of having the board send the check directly).

Now add up base, plus the deductions.
What do you get? You get the base+TRS, because TRS is not coming out of base, it is an additional perk given by the board, being funded by the taxpayers instead of the person collecting the pension. I'm not sure how much more clear I can be. To help you out, here is the entire report;
http://illinoispolicy.org/uploads/files/teacherpensions10-13.pdf
(Oswego is on pg30)
For D308, this is $5.7M per year.

33% of districts in the state do not do this, however D308 does(as well as D202).

This is not complicated.
The board is paying HER share of pension contributions, not her. It is in the labor contract. No matter how many times you try to use it as one, a pay stub is not a legal document. The labor agreement, is.

I imagine you would find out very quickly what is going on, if the proposed pension shift to local districts goes through. Every single district that has been using this loophole will see a MASSIVE increase in property taxes, while the districts that do NOT use this loophole will actually see a decrease in property taxes.

This has nothing to do with teacher hating or union hating, it has everything to do with being able to make sound long-term financial decisions. The current setup is not sound, and it is not sustainable in the long-term,or even the short term for that matter.

The districts (comparable to D308) that do not use this "loophole" also offer a higher base salary than D308 to counteract your supposed savings. Would you rather I be paid a base salary of $40,000 or be paid approximately $36,000 and have the district pick up my $3500 TRS contribution? Or are you suggesting all teachers have compensation reduced so a starting teacher would make $35-36k total compensation?

The proposed pension shift is a terrible idea (for everyone involved including the taxpayers) that the state is trying to push off on local districts since they failed to make the actuarially recommended pension contributions for 40+ years. They are attempting to pass the buck of the normal costs of the pensions. Normal costs of the pensions are only about 1/3 of the states payments each year. The normal costs of these pensions are actually quite affordable and sustainable. The other 2/3 is interest payments due to skipped payments, pension holidays, borrowed payments, etc that are the fault of the state legislature over 40+ years.

Unfortunately, you are a bit out of reality. The shift of pension costs is exactly what needs to happen to the local school districts. The school board will be held accountable for the contracts and raises they hand out to the teacher's union. Maybe then the school board will only give raises for which that can actually afford. If you cannot afford the increase in your property taxes, perhaps you made poor decisions in the size of house you chose to live in.

Your ignorance shows when you think its acceptable for the school board to give out big raises and let the state pick up their end of the contributions. Why should others in southern Illinois pay for Oswego pensions?

Ron...end of career raises are already capped by law. If that is your reasoning for needing to push pensions down to the local level than why not just cap the raises at a smaller amount (maybe 2% or 3%)? Salary raises are a small part of the reason the pensions are so underfunded. The largest reason is the failure of the state to put in the actuarially recommended amount over 40+ years. If you would like more statistics/figures to support this just let me know.

Illinois already is ranked 48th out of 50 states in the amount of education funding schools receive from the state. This means that an inordinate amount of school funding is already from local property taxes. Pushing the pensions down to local levels will only compound this problem and cause local property taxes to rise even more. The state negotiated and designed the pension system and now that they have failed to fund it properly over 40+ years they are passing the buck.

Dave,
This is one Oswego 308 family that is also a Will County resident as well as an Aurora resident. Your point?

Where are they coming from? Under what rock have you been living? A tad behind on local current events when it comes to population growth in the area?

The Dual Language program is actually revenue positive Dave. I believe by about 1.5 million but that is from memory. So if you eliminated the program you would lose the grants and additional aid given to run the program and still need to have buildings, teachers etc to educate all of the children in the program. I don't think we can afford to lose a 1.5 million dollar revenue stream.

Good info, could you provide some links that show it is revenue positive? All the articles I have read and the info I found says how great the program is, but no one has ever said, that I can find, it is revenue positive. In fact, I found several Patch articles where residents were suggesting it be discontinued to save money and no one from the school district made that argument as a reason to keep it. If it is revenue positive, why is this information not more publicly available? Why are the number of students limited and determined by lottery? It would be great to get the data you have so that everyone could see it.

Dave,
I sat in a board meeting where Dual language was discussed. I did a quick search but it didn't come up. It was probably one of the meetings in April or May. I am sure if you contact Misael Nascimento the Director of the Program he could give you the exact details.

here is the Board Meeting video link
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/19967430 I recommend you listen to the whole thing but I believe that starting at minute 30 will cover it.

I believe my numbers were off and it is more like 400,000 in revenue.

Why did we need on-staff Construction Management again? I thought those projects could be handled on a per-project basis with an on-site third party consultant ? it would have saved thousands in salary and retirement funds.

- The only source of retirement income for teachers (outside of self-investment) is the pension, TRS. This is a self-sustained pension plan that is predominately funded by the teachers themselves, with minimal investment by the school district itself.
As one example, which will differ based on years teaching and level of education, a beginning teacher will has $150 taken from their paycheck, the school board puts in less than $10 per paycheck. However, both investments are considered in the total companion package for the teacher. The above is based on twenty-six pay periods per year.

- Currently teachers in district 308 are bringing home less than they did last year due to failure of contract negotiations.
For those teachers taking the medical benefits package offered by the school district, they are paying a higher premium now than last year, but their salary hasn’t changed. Based on the proposed contract put forth by the Board of Education, they want to minimally increase base salaries (0.5% the first year) and make pursuing high education more costly by removing the financial incentive of lane changes. Teachers with a master’s degree have, in the past, earned more than those without, just like it usually is with any other profession. Those with more experience also earned more, but the board wants to freeze that so teachers will not earn anything more for years of experience. After taxes and other state and federal withdraws the total increase in pay would be about $200 a year for a beginning teacher.

- While I can’t attest to every teacher’s personal habits, many elementary teachers invest hundreds to thousands of dollars of their own money in their classrooms.
The school provides a small stipend to teachers for miscellaneous items. This amount is about $75 per year. Anything beyond that will come out of the teachers own pocket. From the boarders on the corkboards to the number line spanning the walls from -20 to 150, the books in their classroom library, and any reward or incentive program the teacher may have to promote behavior or good studying habits can add up. While I’m not going to provide tax returns on here, I do know a first year teacher who spent over $2000 to build up a classroom library and decorate their classroom so their students would have an enriching environment.
I hope this sheds some light on some of the issues surrounding teachers and pensions or monetary compensation. They are not asking for anything out of the ordinary. They have, like most people today been forced to do more for less. They are now fighting to keep what they do have.
On a personal note, I am not in education, though I know many teachers. People used to valued educators, but misleading remarks by state and local entities managed to sway public opinion in an attempt to take away what little these professional are given. Most teachers I know teach because they think it’s important. I only hope people out there can check their facts before passing judgement.

Kevin check with your accountant, the numbers they give don't add up! I believe this was the same fuzzy math they gave the last time around and that's why another referendum will have a very hard time passing. So many are just being stretched to the limits and this district puts us farther down the path of bankruptcy. I don't think it's a matter of what we need as much as it's a matter of what we can afford. I still would like to know how they plan on opening those additions without the extra operating funds.

Perhaps I would support the teachers if you actually make your required 9.4% contribution to TRS.

Ron...In districts that do not make the 9.4% pension payment for the teachers they usually have higher base salaries. For example, a first year teacher with a bachelors in Oswego receives a base salary of $36,240 + TRS payment which totals $40,000. Since your friend Tim has applauded Downers Grove for cutting out 'perks', we can use DG as an example. In Downers Grove 99 a 1st year teacher with bachelors makes $48,981 salary and the teacher sends the check to TRS themselves (so overall they get nearly $9,000 more in compensation than in D308). Downers Grove District 58 also receives more in total compensation then D308. Would you rather Oswego has teachers send in the checks and keep compensation the same? Or are you saying teachers should receive only that base salary ($36,240 in the example) and take a 9.4% decrease in total compensation? You are attempting to paint a picture like Oswego teachers are getting a free ride when in reality the only difference is who sends in the check. Quit trying to paint D308 teachers as villains.

What districts are you using to compare salaries? If you are going to make a statement like that, you need to be able to back it up.
Higher base salaries are comparable to the areas median income, not whether they contribute or not. So, that is a very poorly thought out way to make your point.
Go right ahead and post what other districts you were referring to when you said they 'usually have a higher base salary', and I will be happy to point out to you the differences in the areas median incomes, and why that is the contributing factor. But since you walked right into giving Downers Grove as an example;

Downers Grove Median income - $104K
Oswego median income - $75K

I'd rather the employees pay into a plan they collect from. If you want to increase base salaries far above what the median income of the area can support, that will cause you all kinds of other problems. However, if you want to create a sustainable system that is fair to EVERYONE, then this is the only alternative.

Downers Grove has no problem with it, what is so special about Oswego that they can not do it? Being told to pay for your own pension, instead of making the residents pay it for you, is not 'trying to make them into a villain', its being fiscally responsible. Let them get paid based on the areas median income, and let them contribute to their pensions just like the other districts that get paid based on THEIR areas median incomes.

School Board members serve without compensation, as in: no pay. I'm all for criticism when they deserve it, but make it factually based at least.

Hi Tim, Just for clarification, can you please source where you pulled the Oswego Median Income from?

I just pulled from here:
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_11_3YR_S1903&prodType=table

And this chart:
MEDIAN INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2011 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS)

It resulted in this median income: 93,801 with a +/- of $5233K.
For Family Median Income: $104,874

When I ran the same report for Downers Grove Village, IL, this is what I retrieved:
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_11_3YR_S1903&prodType=table
Median Income $81,272 Error rate +/-5,234
Family Median Income $102,904

Then in Downers Grove Township, IL Dupage County
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_11_1YR_S1903&prodType=table
Median Income $76,949 Error Rate +/-5,147
Family Medan Income $96,344

The "idiot board members" in terms of dollars are the only free lunch in town! BOE members serve at no compensation, nada, squat, and they take a lot of abuse too....just like the teachers seem to take...and they get paid...maybe not much..but definitely more than a board member. I'm tired of teachers and their profession being a sacred cow which can not be commented on negatively without being called a "basher" or anti-education. Simple fact...did or did not someone entering the teaching profession not know a lot of what they would be facing when they started down the road? It doesn't make some of the things right and it doesn't make some of them wrong. But in my mind a teacher making $35 - 40K is no less and no more important than anyone else making the same in terms of having to pay their bills, mortgages, food etc.

Tim is saying that he thinks Oswego teachers are over compensated. He wants a 9.4% reduction in Oswego teacher compensation. He says that Oswego teacher compensation is far above what our median income can support. This chart below is total compensation including salaries and pension payments, so it includes Tim's gripe about pensions (Tim is only using the hot button pension issue to try and call for a drastic reduction in teacher compensation). Quite a few of these districts even have lower median household incomes than Oswego.

District BA 1st yr MA 10th yr
Elgin U-46 39,650 62,850
Batavia 101 40,900 63,600
Aurora 129 42,500 64,800
Joliet 204 44,900 63,225
Naperville 203 44,000 67,000
Naperville 204 42,065 60,550
Plainfield 202 40,300 55,500
Yorkville 115 39,600 57,000
Oswego 308 36,240*/40,000 52,000*/57,400

The * figure is what Tim wants us to pay (as if he has any say...FYI Tim isn't even a D308 taxpayer...yet he spends his spare time demanding Oswego teachers receive a bottom of the barrel salary). The other figure for Oswego is what teachers currently receive. As you can see Oswego teacher compensation is currently comparable to Yorkville and Plainfield. Oswego teacher compensation is behind the Napervilles, Aurora, Elgin, Batavia, and Joliet. Tim's suggestions would cripple Oswego 308's abilities to attract and maintain teachers.

http://oswego.patch.com/articles/census-oswego#comments

Well it looks like Tim's median household income for $75k is clearly way off. This Patch article based on the latest census says that the median household income is around $94k.

Did you actually take the time to consider cost of living between Downers Grove and Oswego?

Ron,
I'm not concerned about the actual numbers that are posted, more interested in how the numbers I found can be so different than the numbers that Tim found.
It appears that Katra above also found numbers that were closer to mine than Tim's. Tim usually puts up his source, so I was curious as to where his numbers came from.

Ron, the only argument you are making is that Oswego could actually afford to pay their teachers more than Downers Grove (granted it doesn't take in to consideration Economic Development contributions, but that's another topic, you only focused on Median Income and Cost of Living - to which Oswego comes out ahead in both). But I don't think that is the question being asked. I think what we are trying to understand is what data source Tim is using, so that we can have a conversation based on consistency. I refer to City-Data when I want to generally use something, and because I personally find the census data retrieval process cumbersome. CD is often, more than not close to the census info, or will source it's data. It looks similar to what Oswego Resident has shared, and I would use that as a valid source for comparables looking side by side for a general discussion. I just can't figure where Tim pulled the Oswego number, except if he pulled the number from the wrong line, inadvertently. If so, no big deal - we all make mistakes, but I still want the source to compare the correct number and overall.

Yes...teaching is such a miserable and low paying job...you have to have give aways and back door pensions to entice people into such a lowly task! ;-)