- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: No raise for teachers & Judges have to retire @ 70 years of age
Posted on 5/18/26 at 2:47 pm to BigNastyTiger417
Posted on 5/18/26 at 2:47 pm to BigNastyTiger417
It's complicated and definitely not explained well enough via the ballot language.
The vote was really not about approving a teacher pay "raise" (misleading by itself - it was only an annual $250 increase for certificated and $125 increase for non-certificated over the stipend the legislature has allocated the last few years). The vote was needed because the electorate has to approve the depletion of those constitutionally protected funds. If they wanted to implement a pay raise for teachers, they could and can do that without a constitutional amendment via regular legislation, changes to the MFP formula, etc.
The vote was really not about approving a teacher pay "raise" (misleading by itself - it was only an annual $250 increase for certificated and $125 increase for non-certificated over the stipend the legislature has allocated the last few years). The vote was needed because the electorate has to approve the depletion of those constitutionally protected funds. If they wanted to implement a pay raise for teachers, they could and can do that without a constitutional amendment via regular legislation, changes to the MFP formula, etc.
1
Posted on 5/18/26 at 6:26 pm to jujubee1206
Wasn’t it for (roughly) $2,200 raise?
Posted on 5/19/26 at 1:51 pm to BigNastyTiger417
Depends on how you define a pay raise - the legislation called for "increases" of $2,250 for certificated and $1,125 for non-certificated employees
Technically, the idea was that it was making permanent a stipend ($2,000 certificated, $1,000 non-certificated) they've received via direct appropriation from the legislature for a few years now. So the only actual increase to their pay would have been $250 or $125 annually.
Technically, the idea was that it was making permanent a stipend ($2,000 certificated, $1,000 non-certificated) they've received via direct appropriation from the legislature for a few years now. So the only actual increase to their pay would have been $250 or $125 annually.
Page 7 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News