One of the hoped for benefits of posting my paper on Increment costs on the Internet (on this web site) was that it would lead to a consensus of validation and support for the concept that progressive pay/increment systems leads to the need for little or no “new money” for projected year funding compared to a prior reference year payroll. The availability of the paper has led to the author’s exchange of correspondence with Mr. Brent Mckim, a Physics teacher in Jefferson County (Louisville), Kentucky, who is on leave of absence serving as his school district’s Teacher Association President. In that role he has been engaged in a discussion with his Jefferson County Board of Education (JCBE) Chief Financial Officer (CFO) who claims that an annual 1.8% increase in funding is needed to pay for that County’s increment system. This claim is essentially identical to the claim made by the Harford County, Maryland School system as documented in the author’s paper (Appendix B, pages 58-60) on this website. In a series of e-mails with the author, Mr. Mckim first describes a thought process (gedankenexperiment) that leads him to the conclusion that the year to year budget should be largely unaffected by the increment. In a follow-up e-mail he thereafter cites how the state of Kentucky mandates that each school district must provide annual data to a master state data base listing average teacher salaries for the year. In the correspondence Mr. Mckim then shows how analysis of that data confirms the thesis that providing the increment leads to the need for little or no new money to fund the increment. This described e-mail correspondence is listed below.
Harold J. Breaux
September 19, 2014
Analysis-Kentucky Data on Increment Cost.pdf