MADISON TOWNSHIP — The Madison Local School District and its teachers union have reached a consensus on a new three-year contract after a year of negotiations.
The negotiated agreement was unanimously approved by the school board Monday and secured 90 percent approval from union membership Wednesday night. It will run through July 31, 2027 — three years from the last contract’s expiration date.
The agreement is based on the recommendations of factfinder Donald M. Collins, appointed by the State Employees Relations Board to provide impartial recommendations to both parties.
The new contract includes:
- A 3% increase in base salary for beginning teachers, retroactive to Jan. 24, 2025 (from $35,936 to $37,014)
- A 2% increase in base salary for beginning teachers, effective Aug. 1, 2025 (from $37,014 to $37,754)
- A 2% increase in base salary for beginning teachers, effective Aug. 1, 2026 (from $37,754 to $38,509)
The base salary is the starting salary for a first-year teacher, but impacts the salary schedule for all teachers.
The agreement also includes increases in out-of-pocket maximums for health insurance and a 1% increase in health insurance premiums, split over the course of two years.
Kristi Green, spokesperson for the Madison Local Education Association, said 90% of union members voted in favor of the recommendations.
Green called the agreement a “middle ground” and said the union is thankful the negotiation process is over.
“Though we are not happy about every decision, we have accepted the offer,” Green said.
“We can continue to do what we always have, putting students first by giving our best in the classroom,” she added. “We would like to thank the community, parents and students for their support during this long process.”
Supt. Rob Peterson said Thursday he is pleased the district and union were able to come to an agreement.
“While we don’t agree with all of the factfinder’s recommendations, we recognize and appreciate that there were concessions made on both sides that allowed us to come to an agreement,” Peterson said.
“We have excellent teachers here at Madison, and we appreciate all that they do for our students and their families and desire to compensate them fairly while balancing that with the district’s financial position,” he added.
What was each side asking for?
The MLEA has 221 members, including teachers, guidance counselors and school librarians. Members of the MLEA had been working under an expired contract since Aug. 1, 2024.
According to the fact-finder’s report, the district and union started negotiations last April, but were unable to come to an agreement. The school board requested factfinding in September.
Representatives for the district and union met with a factfinder on Jan. 24 and submitted position statements. Collins issued his report March 26.
The factfinder weighed in on salary, retirement contributions, health insurance and the contract duration.
Per the factfinder’s report, the board offered a three-year agreement with a 2% salary increase upon the ratification of an agreement, plus 2% increases on Aug. 1, 2025 and Aug. 1, 2026.
According to Connell’s report, district management argued 2% increases are all the district can afford given Madison’s financial situation, declining enrollment and a potential decrease in state funding as a result.
The union requested a two-year agreement with a 3% salary increase retroactive to Aug. 1, 2024 and a 2% increase on Aug.1, 2025.
The union argued that the district can afford the increase with its investments and that inflation makes it necessary.
The factfinder recommended a 3% increase in the union’s base salary, effective Jan. 24, 2025, with 2% increases each year.
“A 2% increase is not unreasonable in today’s economy and a 3% increase retroactive to January 25, 2025 is likewise not unreasonable given the additional expenses the teachers are being asked to support elsewhere in this report,” the factfinder wrote.
Per the report, the district sought to stop paying any portion of employee pension into the State Teachers Retirement System (STRS) in exchange for a 8.25% base salary increase by August 2026.
The board argued this would help with employee recruitment because it would allow prospective hires to more accurately compare teacher salaries to similar districts.
According to Peterson, under the last negotiated agreement, the district paid 6.75% of the employee STRS portion, in addition to the traditional 14% employer contribution.
The union opposed the change, noting district administrators receive the full 14% employee contribution paid by the district.
“Also the perception will be that the exchange will result in salary increases of 4 to 5% each year leading the public to believe the agreement is pretty generous, a perception no one wants given the slim margin of a recent levy passage,” the factfinder wrote, summarizing the union’s argument.
Collins recommended maintaining the current employer STRS contribution rates.
“Although the employer’s proposal gives the union members more money (an 8.25% raise) for the buy back and seems to make sense economically, it is up to the union to decide what is in the best interests of their membership,” Collins write.
The district sought to raise out-of-pocket maximum payments for health insurance. The proposed increases included:
- Raising the in-network maximum for single employees from $750 to $1,000
- Raising the non-network maximum for single employees from $1,500 to $2,000
- Raising the in-network maximum for families from $1,500 to $2,000
- Raising the non-network maximum for families from $3,000 to $4,000
The district argued that health insurance costs are a fast-increasing part of the budget and the levels suggested are “well below” the state average.
The union opposed the changes, citing changing health insurance premiums.
The factfinder upheld the district’s recommendation, citing a state average of $2,837 and $3,750 for single in-network and non-network maximums and $5,653 and $7,503 family in-network and non-network plans.
The district proposed increasing the employee share for health insurance premiums by one-half percent each at the start of calendar years 2026 and 2027.
According to the factfinder’s report, union employees currently pay 10% of the premium for high deductible plans and 15% of the premium for preferred provider organization plans.
The union opposed any changes, citing increases in the previous negotiated agreement and the impact on teacher pay.
“These benefits are valuable and have been obtained over the course of numerous contracts, some of which included salary freezes,” the union argued. “The benefit helps attract and retain members and should not be diminished. Additionally members have already contributed to the premium in the most recent labor agreement.”
Collins upheld the district’s recommendation, calling the increases “slight” and said the increase would allow the district to remain competitive while keeping some control on health insurance costs.
