While we are engaged in primarily a traditional/positional bargaining process with the University, our bargaining team is utilizing elements that come from the Interest-Based Bargaining (IBB) approach we believe are helpful to the process. One of those elements is sharing our story. In IBB, sharing your story means moving beyond only positions or proposals to explain the why — the needs, concerns, fears, experiences, goals — through narrative to provide context to those proposals and help folks understand perspective and potentially identify mutual interests and find mutually beneficial solutions in collaborative rather than only adversarial ways.
The story related to compensation we shared with the University at our latest bargaining meeting on April 14, 2026
Just as we did when we first sat down together to begin the bargaining process, we think it’s helpful to share our story with you.
So, before we present any proposal related to compensation or other financial topics, we want to share with you some context to help you understand where those proposals come from.
Back in January we shared with you that this process does not have to be the parties “against each other.” Rather, it can be about engaging in difficult conversations with respect, understanding perspectives, addressing both mutual and diverse interests, and solving problems collaboratively.
We believe that’s true when discussing compensation as well.
In fact, prior to organizing a union, the University and our members were doing exactly that – engaging in a collective, collaborative effort to address the challenges related to compensation. These challenges included:
- Salary inequity, compression, and inversion
- Lack of regional market competitiveness
- Inconsistency in following agreed upon practices
- Lack of stability in regular salary growth (in keeping with other school district’s practices)
- Addressing recruitment and retention concerns as we seek to, as the Provost has stated, “hire to retire”
We are pursuing a contract which adequately respects and values the work our members do with and for the students and families of the Lab Schools. Our members work each day to provide individual attention to our students, and to create an educational environment which values equity, diversity, access and belonging. It’s difficult to bargain for appreciation and respect — so we do it through working conditions, compensation and benefits.
Despite the work our members do, they continue to be undercompensated compared to the regional market.
Historically, the “other benefits” of working in the Lab Schools have outweighed the compensation gap. As late as 2023, however, compensation has been jointly identified as an area of growth for the entire University. We currently have faculty and staff who now leave the Lab Schools, because they know they will be financially better off leaving than staying and investing in our mission.
It’s important to note that when we began this process, we asked our bargaining unit members to share with us what one thing they would change about their current working conditions if they could. More than 90% of them told us the one thing they would change is their compensation.
For more than two decades, the Lab Schools operated under a compensation framework that recognized the professional role of Faculty Associates in fulfilling the University’s mission of teacher preparation. While imperfect, it reflected an understanding that equity required sustained, regular commitment.
In 2019, that commitment was reaffirmed. Superintendent Dr. Kinley commissioned a formal review to address longstanding inequities and adopted a modified reconciliation process to bring Faculty Associate salaries to a regionally competitive level. This updated a methodology in place for more than 25 years, originally initiated under Superintendent Dr. Robert Dean, and was collaborative — giving Faculty Associates a meaningful voice.
In FY21, Interim Director Dr. Barbara Meyer implemented the first iteration of the updated reconciliation process after securing approval at all required levels, including from the Interim President of the University. At that time, there was clear agreement among all parties that reconciliation would continue through deliberate adjustments until equity was achieved.
Though the circumstances stayed the same, leadership priorities and attitudes began to shift. Turnover at the Director, Dean, Provost, and Presidential levels led to a departure from prior commitments. In his first year as Interim Dean, Dr. McLoda reported to the Salary Study Committee growing resistance at the Provost and Presidential levels to continuing salary improvements. He further reported that reconciliation — a practice in place for over two decades and outlined in the Faculty Associate Handbook with an annual review process — was to be discontinued, citing comments from President Tarhule questioning the return on investment of increased Faculty Associate salaries.
Dr. McLoda acknowledged the need to improve salaries and the compounding effects of inversion and compression caused by the state-mandated minimum educator salary. He secured approval from the Provost and President for a revised approach: applying both a “step” increase and the minimum salary adjustment to Faculty Associates. While deviating from the original plan, it was implemented in August 2024 as a partial measure, with support through the shared governance process and structure that had worked thus far. Through this adjustment, we came very close to reaching our established goal of the 75th percentile for compensation. That goal set in 2019 was almost fully met. After August 2024, however, the shared work talked about so far was totally abandoned.
Rather than restoring trust, subsequent actions further eroded it. Over the following year, repeated attempts at transparent dialogue were met with resistance, as leadership meeting minutes reflected hesitation to adjust salaries due to the unrelated ISU Faculty negotiations. In April 2025, only after repeated requests to honor the Faculty Associate Handbook, the Salary Study Committee recommended simply repeating the 2024 approach again in 2025. This recommendation was denied by the university because there was a union in place and it was believed continuing the approach that was already in place would constitute a change in working conditions — despite the fact that the established reconciliation process was the “status quo” at the time. Based on our work, we believe that the average adjustment to faculty associate salaries, to return to the agreed upon target of the 75th percentile, would be over $12,000 per Faculty Associate at this time.
These dynamics are not limited to Faculty Associates. Many staff members essential to daily operations at the Lab Schools remain underpaid at rates significantly below others in the region. Several report promises of salary improvements tied to systemic change that never materialized, leaving them navigating bureaucratic processes while earning wages comparable to, or less than, those of high school students in part-time employment.
All of this occurred during a period of increased state investment. In FY25 and FY26, the Lab Schools received over $2 million in additional, new Evidence Based Funding dollars compared to the FY24 level. By FY27, this will be over $3 million additional dollars.
We’ve heard there is hesitancy to invest more because the Lab School reserves are too high. But those reserves are there as a result of the state’s evidence based funding, which is intended for operating the Lab Schools — a significant portion of which involves paying the people who make the Lab Schools work. Shifting leadership roles and leadership philosophies outside of the Lab Schools has led to that lack of investment and large reserve balance. The reserves have grown because the university decided to no longer participate in our joint effort to address and improve compensation at the Lab Schools or other efforts in support of our mission.
This history reflects more than stalled progress. It reflects a pattern of commitments made, acknowledged, and set aside by changing leaders — leaving bargaining unit members with the perception that they are asked to sustain the University’s mission working with clinical students without the equity, investment, or professional respect that mission requires.
We need to invest in the people who sustain the mission of the Lab Schools
The ISU Lab Schools occupy a unique place within the university and the broader educational community. They serve not only the students enrolled in our classrooms, but also the mission of Illinois State University and the College of Education by supporting innovation in teaching and learning and by preparing future educators through clinical experiences. The success of this mission depends fundamentally on the expertise, dedication, and stability of the educators and staff who work in our schools every day.
Based on the collaborative work that was being done previously, our financial proposals will likely feel familiar to anyone who was part of the joint salary study work and previous efforts to address compensation challenges–like comparison districts and mathematical processes.
And, our proposals will be grounded in a simple idea: sustaining the Lab Schools requires sustained investment in the people who make their work possible.
Historically, the strength of the Lab Schools has come from that investment. Current practices have reflected a commitment to recognizing professional expertise, experience, and advanced learning among Faculty Associates and staff. These practices have helped create a stable, high-quality educational environment that benefits students and supports the university’s broader mission. Our proposals continue that tradition by preserving the recognition of previously approved coursework, degrees, and professional experience. By holding current employees harmless for prior approvals and recognitions, our proposals ensure continuity, fairness, and stability within the system.
At the same time, our proposals acknowledge areas where meaningful investment has lagged — particularly for Civil Service employees. Many of these employees have not received significant structural adjustments to compensation in recent years despite the essential role they play in supporting the education of our students, the daily operations of our schools, and the broader educational mission. In fact, some of our Teaching Assistants are essentially paid at the same level as Freshman student workers across campus – minimum wage. Some student workers in our system are paid at a higher rate than our Teaching Assistants. Our proposals aim to begin addressing that gap by establishing clearer compensation benchmarks and ensuring that Civil Service employees are included in the broader investment in the Lab Schools workforce.
Our proposals also respond to a clear challenge facing the Lab Schools today: turnover at multiple levels. Recent departures among educators and staff have occurred across roles, and many individuals have cited compensation as a significant factor in their decision to leave. In a competitive educational labor market, the ability to recruit and retain talented professionals depends on maintaining compensation structures that reflect the value and expertise of the workforce.
For that reason, our proposals will include across-the-board salary increases, minimum salary benchmarks, recognition of advanced degrees and professional coursework, and longevity stipends that reward long-term commitment to the Lab Schools. It also ensures that additional responsibilities — supervising programs, mentoring clinical students, or performing extra duties essential to school operations — are compensated fairly and consistently.
Finally, our proposals support the distinctive mission of the Lab Schools within Illinois State University. Faculty Associates play a central role in preparing the next generation of educators through clinical mentorship and collaboration with the College of Education. Civil Service staff support the safe, organized, and effective functioning of the schools that make those partnerships possible. By investing in the people who perform this work, our proposals will reinforce the Lab Schools’ role as a model educational environment and a vital component of the university’s mission.
Taken together, our proposals represent a continuation of the Lab Schools’ tradition of investing in people while responding to current challenges in recruitment, retention, and workforce stability. By strengthening compensation structures across roles and recognizing the contributions of both Faculty Associates and Civil Service staff, our proposals seek to ensure that the Lab Schools remain a place where talented professionals choose to build and sustain their careers in service of students and the mission of the Lab Schools and Illinois State University.
The bottom line: we’ve fallen behind and we have a lot of work to do, together, to catch up.
We commit to being clear and direct, to operating with integrity, and to respecting the process and the people involved in it.
We are hopeful we can expect the same.
Leave a Reply