Teachers, students and community members urge fair pay and a step‑in‑lane contract during public comments

Dozens of community members, teachers and students addressed the Ithaca City School District Board of Education during the public‑comment period to call for a new teacher contract that includes a step‑in‑lane salary structure and better pay to stem high teacher turnover.

Former teacher Nicole Doria told the board she resigned in August after 15 years, saying pay inequities and a contract offer that did not address disparities left her “devastated” and unable to continue. “That message sent to me was, I don't value you,” Doria said. She asked the board to “install a step‑in‑lane system for our teachers” so the district can retain experienced educators and provide mentors for new hires.

Several students and family members echoed that message. Elliot Purser, a senior at Ithaca High School, said teacher working conditions have “come to a crisis point,” describing facility problems and gaps in basic supplies and alleging that more than 30% of teachers from his freshman year had since left. Student speakers also linked teacher retention to student learning, saying frequent turnover harms continuity and feedback on assignments.

Meg Burke, a northeast librarian, presented an analysis she says she compiled from four years of the district’s personnel reports and board documents. Burke told the board she found a severe retention trend and shared the following figures, which she attributed to the district personnel reports: a cumulative 53% of teachers resigned over the four‑year period she studied; the district turnover rate for the 2024–25 school year was 18%; and per‑building averages showed turnover near 49%, with the highest reported at 88% in one school. Burke also summarized reasons listed on personnel reports for leaving: “other employment” (33%), retirement (22%), personal reasons (9% in one phrasing), “other” (11%) and relocation (2%). She said her review found that, of the teachers hired in the period she examined, 58% were not certified on the date of hire.

Other public commenters raised related concerns: Liddy Allen asked whether the board conducts a yearly self‑evaluation and whether board goals and superintendent evaluation processes are published; Victor Gallo, who identified himself as the spouse of a teacher, urged the board to use its legal counsel to secure commitments for teachers; and additional student speakers described accessibility and bus‑timing problems that they said are exacerbated by staff shortages.

Board members responded during the meeting’s public‑comment replies. Board member Adam said the board is “trying to figure out how to pay teachers more” while preserving long‑term financial viability, noting constraints from property‑tax limits and past community votes on tax measures. Other board members urged continuing dialogue, invited commenters to share documents with the board clerk for distribution, and directed members of the HR committee to follow up on data and personnel‑report questions.

No formal action or vote on contract language or immediate salary changes occurred during the meeting; the board and superintendent repeatedly said financial tradeoffs and multi‑year budget implications must be considered when altering long‑term salary schedules.

The board asked speakers who provided documents to send electronic copies to the board clerk. Several board members noted they want more detailed exit and personnel data and invited continued engagement from students, parents and staff on retention solutions.

Community members who spoke emphasized that teacher pay and contract structure affect classroom stability and student learning, and they urged the board to prioritize a step‑in‑lane schedule, supplemental benefits and other contract provisions that commenters said would improve recruitment and retention.