District offers three salary options; union holds to 7.5% step-and-lane demand and presses leapfrogging fixes

The Ithaca City School District (ICSD) presented three distinct counterproposals for teacher pay on March 27 as bargaining continued with the Ithaca Teachers Association (ITA). ICSD negotiators described 1) a two‑year rollover at 4% per year, 2) a four‑year plan at 4% per year plus new longevity steps (the district said the total package equals about a 19.68% increase over four years), and 3) a narrower two‑year 4% approach plus a promise to investigate and remedy leapfrogging cases.

The ITA reiterated it could not accept any of the district’s three approaches and kept its previously filed step‑and‑lane demand: 7.5% to the overall salary pool each year for four years and a full transition to a step‑and‑lane pay schedule. The union asked the district for a case‑by‑case review of pay discrepancies it calls "leapfrogging," and reserved the right to present a counterproposal by Monday, April 7.

Why it matters: The proposals differ not only in aggregate dollars but in distribution. ICSD said its four‑year proposal aims to balance predictability, mid‑ and late‑career retention and long‑term budget sustainability by adding longevity payments at defined intervals (examples given: $750 at year 5, $1,500 at year 10, $2,250 at year 15, $3,000 at year 20). The ITA said district proposals would leave many midcareer and long‑serving educators compressed relative to newer hires and therefore asked the district to remedy compression before accepting a lower percentage plan.

Key details from the session

- ICSD presentation: District HR staff presented baseline workforce numbers the district uses to model costs: roughly 576 FTE teachers (the presentation also referenced a working count around 550–575) and a combined annual base salary pool the presenter described as about $38.4 million (salary only, not benefits). The district said average teacher experience in the district is 10.2 years; median is 7 years, indicating a concentration in earlier career stages.

- Three ICSD proposals (as presented): • Proposal 1: Two‑year agreement with 4% increases each year (short term to allow fiscal re‑evaluation). ICSD said it removed retention bonus language originally included. • Proposal 2: Four‑year agreement with 4% increases each year plus a longevity structure; ICSD described the total authorized cost as a 19.68% increase over current ITA salaries across four years and said longevity payments would be added to base at year 5 ($750), year 10 ($1,500), year 15 ($2,250), year 20 ($3,000). • Proposal 3: A return to a shorter (two‑year) 4% path while setting aside funds and a process to identify and correct leapfrogging case‑by‑case.

- Leapfrogging / compression: ICSD asked the group to agree on a common definition of "leapfrogging." The district defined it as when an employee with fewer years of service and similar credits is paid more than an employee with greater service/credits. ICSD said an initial data pull showed roughly 428 employees were involved in cases that appeared to reflect pay discrepancies (the district cautioned years‑of‑service in the spreadsheet are district service only and do not show prior teaching service or timing of credit attainment). The district proposed an intake and archival review process (pull original hiring paperwork and board reports) to resolve individual cases. ICSD staff said they will not reduce anyone’s pay to fix disparities and that any fix would be upward.

- ITA position and testimony: ITA negotiators declined all three district options and reiterated their request for a step‑and‑lane system and a 7.5% annual increase to the overall salary pot for four years. During public comments, teachers gave detailed examples of compression: Danielle Gardner, an elementary teacher of 19 years, described being “compressed” by newer hires with higher pay and said the situation was forcing difficult family choices. Former ICSD teacher Elizabeth (Liz) Quadrosi described leaving ICSD for Lansing after receiving a $17,000 raise and said the financial consequences for long‑serving teachers are real.

- Budget context offered by ICSD: District staff reviewed revenue drivers and constraints, including a stated increase in foundation/state aid (the district referenced a roughly $2.7 million increase in foundation aid), volatility in building aid, an ST‑3 state financial report that showed use and replenishment of reserves, and federal aid uncertainty (district cited approximately $5.6 million in federal funds on a $163M–$169M revenue base). The superintendent said the district is tapping reserves and that pay increases must be balanced against tax cap and long‑term sustainability.

Quotes from the session

• "This is the most aggressive proposal we've ever put on the table in this organization as far as total dollar amounts," said Dr. Brown (ICSD), describing the district’s four‑year offer.

• "I am compressed ... I earn less than some colleagues with half of my experience and fewer credentials," said Danielle Gardner (Ithaca elementary teacher).

• "We fundamentally believe that a teacher with 6 years of teaching experience and 32 credits should make more money than a teacher with 5 years of teaching experience and 32 credits," an ICSD presenter said while defining leapfrogging.

Formal actions and next steps

- ICSD formally presented three counterproposals to the ITA; none were adopted during the session.

- The ITA stated it cannot accept proposals 1–3 and maintained its step‑and‑lane 7.5%/year for four years proposal; the ITA offered to present a counterproposal by Monday, April 7. ICSD indicated it may also provide or review counterproposal material by that date and said both sides will continue bargaining on April 10.

What remains unresolved

- Which pay structure will be adopted (flat percentage models vs. step‑and‑lane) and the total fiscal cost. - The scope and remedy for leapfrogging: the district and union agreed to more data work and a case‑by‑case review if the parties define a common test for what counts as leapfrogging. - Whether longevity steps proposed by the district and their compounding effects are acceptable to the union.

Ending note: Both sides left the session planning further data sharing and follow‑up. The union repeated its commitment to hold to the step‑and‑lane package and to provide a counterproposal by April 7; ICSD said it would do additional modeling and said the district’s offers reflect what it characterized as the most aggressive financial proposals its leadership has authorized.