A recent Press Herald editorial endorsed increasing Maine’s teacher pay to address teacher attrition (“Our View: Teacher shortage demands money more than innovation,” March 30). While this is critical, there are other egregious financial disincentives affecting teachers.

After 20 years, I “retired” from teaching high school in 2020; however, I must continue working full time at my former school on a per diem basis because my monthly pension is too small to live on. Additionally, teacher pensions allow for a mere 3% cost of living increase, only on the first $25,000, regardless of how many years a teacher paid into the system. Further, I have a decent amount of Social Security waiting to be claimed, but because Maine is subject to the so-called Windfall Elimination Provision, I am only allowed to claim 40% of it. How is that fair?

L.D. 1096, currently under consideration by the Labor and Housing Committee, would increase the 3% cost of living increase on teacher pensions to 8.7%. L.D. 70, which is headed to Appropriations, increases the cost of living base to $40,000. While I am encouraged by the advancement of these two bills, I fear the Appropriations Committee will claim these are unfunded mandates and will refuse to consider them. Further, neither bill addresses the Windfall Elimination Provision, which prevents teachers from accessing all of their Social Security benefits.

If Maine is serious about maintaining the high quality of public education and making the teaching profession more appealing, we must raise salaries, but also we must ensure that L.D. 1096 and L.D. 70 are fully funded.

Sarah Shmitt
Portland

Copy the Story Link

« Previous

Letter to the editor: What will it take to change minds on guns?

Next »

Letter to the editor: Trump breaks character in the courtroom