Union presses district for "step‑in‑lane" fix to long‑running salary disparities; district asks for data and budget limits

The Ithaca Teachers Association on April 30 told district negotiators it will not accept a salary offer that does not include a transition to a step‑in‑lane pay model to correct long‑term pay disparities among teachers.

The union said the current lane/step system has produced a structural, cumulative effect — teachers who earned graduate credits sooner have had lifetime earnings advantages that newer hires can replicate only slowly — and that members want a clear path to correct that pattern over time.

Why it matters: union leaders said the issue affects hundreds of members and is the reason teachers want a new salary framework rather than a straight percentage across the board. District leaders said the change could be done only within the limits of the district’s available salary pool and that it will take time and reliable data to design a transition that is affordable and legally implementable.

Negotiators focused on whether the union’s data are accurate and how fast a transition could occur. The union cited a spreadsheet it used that identified roughly 428 instances it considers examples of "leapfrogging," and said members expect the district to work jointly to verify years‑of‑service and lane placements for every teacher. The district requested the same joint review: officials said they need clean, auditable payroll and hire‑date records to model any step‑in‑lane transition.

“What we are asking for is to fix the problem,” the union lead said. “At this time, my members are not going to accept an offer that doesn’t include a step in lane.”

District negotiators said they are willing to explore a step‑in‑lane approach but repeatedly flagged the budget constraint. One district negotiator said a 7.5% overall pay increase presented by the union was a “nonstarter” because it exceeded what the district can afford, and asked the union to work with the district’s overall salary pot when crafting models and timing for a transition.

Both sides agreed on one procedural step: joint work to establish an agreed spreadsheet that documents each member’s hire date, credited prior experience, current lane and step. Union representatives said that joint data work is part of their step‑in‑lane proposal and necessary before any firm offer can be drafted.

Other compensation items discussed in the same session included alternative packages the union labeled offer A and offer B. Offer B combined modest base‑pay changes with proposed changes to the professional day (adding structured professional time Monday, Tuesday and Thursday in 2025‑26 with a 1% add to base, and a 10‑minute instructional increase in 2026‑27 paired with a 1% base increase) and a sick‑day buyback/retiree health option the union said could be funded from the district’s health reserve. District negotiators asked for detailed cost estimates before committing to package elements.

What was decided: negotiators did not reach a final salary agreement. The district agreed to provide the union with its calculation of the total salary pot available for bargaining and the district and union agreed to meet jointly (including HR staff) to reconcile the data used in each side’s models. The union signaled it will continue to press for step‑in‑lane as its central salary priority.

What comes next: district staff will return with the salary‑pool number and any requested costings; both sides scheduled follow‑up joint sessions to align the payroll dataset and to model one or more transition timelines that fit the district’s available funds.

Ending: neither side agreed to concrete percentages or a final plan at this session. Both sides described the meeting as a productive exchange that exposed definitional and data gaps — issues they committed to resolve jointly before drafting final offers.