Teacher retention -- an issue that touches every student, every classroom, and every caregiver in our community. Folks who have been watching our ITA negotiations have likely seen and heard that there are fundamental disagreements between the union and the district on the topic of retention. Here, we'll show that the challenge we are facing in teacher retention in the ICSD is real and serious, that the solution that would significantly support teacher retention in the ICSD is straightforward, and the funding to implement this solution is available without exceeding the tax cap nor draining the reserves.

We’re in a retention crisis. Over 40% of ICSD teachers are untenured, and we’ve seen an exodus of experienced educators in recent years. But we’re also in a simultaneous recruitment crisis. Enrollment in teacher prep programs statewide has dropped by over 50% since 2019. Statistically, even when new teachers enter the profession, about 50% leave entirely within the first 5 years. If predictors are true, there is very little hope that positions vacated by veterans will be filled by new teachers. The ICSD requires a larger number of teachers than other districts to maintain our programing. We can not afford to lose anyone, AND we need to be able to attract new teachers just to maintain services. Currently, our salary system doesn’t promote retention at all, and only reaches median goals for  recruitment. This is about stability, continuity, and maintaining the quality of an ICSD education  in every classroom.

ITA has conducted exit interviews over the past two years. When we asked 'Why are you leaving?' the answer we got most often was 'salary.' Not working conditions, not whether or not there was enough support, not the kids—the answer is simple– fix the salary!

The ITA fundamentally believes that our salaries should be based on a very simple concept. Teachers with more years of teaching experience OR more professional learning should be paid more than those with less, and ALL teachers with the same years of experience and the same credits should make the same salary. This slide illustrates the current lived experience of most ICSD teachers under the current system. Leapfrogging is when a teacher with less experience or fewer credits is paid more than you. Tadpoling is when a teacher with less experience and fewer credits is paid the same as you. This is a fundamental problem in our salary structure. It is demoralizing, unpredictable, and undermines any sense of fairness or progress. This is what happens in a system without structure. This is why great teachers leave ICSD.

New employees are placed on the salary grid based on two factors: years of experience and earned graduate credits at the time of hire. Over time, they move down the steps with each year of experience, and across the lanes as they earn graduate credits through professional development.

Take Erin. She starts with 0 years of experience and 0 grad credits, earning $57,126. Over the next three years, she plans to complete a 36-credit master’s program — and she can already see that she’ll be earning $63,226 by sticking with the ICSD and her program.

That’s enough to offset her out-of-pocket costs. That’s the power of predictability.

To truly fix the retention crisis, Step-and-Lane alone isn’t enough — and neither is just a raise.

Our proposal combines both:

• A shift to a structured Step-and-Lane salary schedule

• And a 7.5% average raise over four years to correct long-standing imbalances

This is how we fix pay disparities — both among ICSD teachers and between ICSD and other districts.

If we do one without the other, we either lock in unfair pay or create new unfairness. But together, Step-and-Lane and the raise give us a fair, predictable, and competitive system — one that keeps teachers here.

So what would it cost to implement a step and lane salary structure at 7.5% for the next four years? It would only cost an additional $1.103 million beyond what ICSD budgeted for in the first year to launch this transition, and around 1 million additional per year for the next three years. In a budget the size of the ICSD’s, 1 million dollars is couch cushion money. The ITA’s proposal is not a budget-breaker—but it does require ICSD to make teachers a budget priority.

Does ICSD have the fiscal health to take on  this project to fix the teacher retention crisis?

Absolutely.

Here are a few indicators:
1.) ICSD’s budget has been healthily growing since before COVID. 

2.) Their total reserve fund balance has also been growing healthily. The fund balance is the District’s “rainy day fund” that can be leveraged in times of emergency or to take on bigger short-term projects. 

3.) Their credit rating is an A

Should by chance the ICSD encounter a parallel crisis while fixing the teacher retention crisis, they're in a good spot to manage both.

Let’s look at how we can meet that $1.1 million in 2025-2026.

First, we have to acknowledge that retention saves money. It is significantly more cost effective to retain staff than it is to recruit, hire, and onboard new staff– and that doesn’t begin to account for the non-monetary values of skill, experience, and relationships that are lost when experienced teachers walk out the door. Fewer vacancies means fewer recruiting costs, less onboarding, and less disruption to teaching and learning. Last year alone the ICSD spent more money to replace teachers we lost than the ITA is asking them to find to keep teachers here.

So, an increasing amount of funding for this project can come from efficiencies in HR as ICSD moves from using HR to triage the crisis to managing a stable staff with predictable needs.

Second, we know that ICSD over budgets and under spends. Historically, millions of dollars go unused every year. That money doesn’t disappear. It gets rolled into that healthy fund balance - similarly to how a household that has extra money at the end of the month can pad their savings accounts. Recognizing this pattern gives all of us room to breathe, and a compelling argument that NOW is the time to invest in teachers– the money is there! 

Let’s break down a few specific budget lines to show how simple it is to find this money in the ICSD budget.

Here’s a slide showing many budgeted ITA salaries and the actual expenditures from last year. There’s a difference of $2M here. Why is this the case?
1.) The teacher retention crisis! From the time ICSD creates a budget in February / March to the end of the following academic year, many many ICSD teachers resign or retire. These positions are often replaced by teachers receiving less pay.
2.) Some positions fail to fill altogether.
3.) Right now, a number of positions are being filled by uncertified teachers. In our current contract, these teachers perpetually make Year 1 pay, so they’re not receiving the raises that ICSD budgets for.

It’s fiscally responsible to budget a little for this. $2M though? The ICSD has also responsibility to use taxpayers’ contributions each year toward the student experience.

The funding to fix the crisis is here, plain as day.

Third – and with the significant savings we've already identified in Sections 2a and 2b, this step is likely not even necessary – we examined the 2025–26 ICSD budget and found several high- and medium-flexibility accounts where planned spending is set to grow over 2024–25 levels. By freezing growth in high-flexibility lines (such as supplies and equipment) and capping medium-flexibility categories at a modest 2% increase, ICSD could reallocate $1 million—without cutting a single position or program.