Are you a K-12 educator participating in or helping students with the Presidential AI Challenge? I'd love to chat with you! DM or email me: llangreo@educationweek.org.

#EduSky #EduSkyAI #AI #EdTech

Our unit has made concessions. It has worked cooperatively. It’s time for EdWeek to stop having its lowest paid employees shoulder the company’s financial future. It is EdWeek’s turn now to come back with a reasonable and meaningful offer.

EdWeek spent nearly DOUBLE our requested salary increase in legal expenses, per the company’s 2024 tax forms. Their lawyer once chastised us for asking for this raise just so we could “buy horses.” Our lowest paid employee makes less than $45,000. We don’t want horses. We want to buy groceries.

EdWeek management repeatedly has told us that we’re a nonprofit, and our salaries are reflective of that. Chalkbeat’s CEO made $298,306in 2024. 74 Million’s CEO made $266,904. Ours made $531,400. How can that logic only apply to our lowest paid employees?

The annual raise would cost the company approx. $140,000. We know this isn’t chump change. But the average salary of senior leadership at EdWeek is $300,776, while the average salary for an EdWeek employee is $73,854.

In the DMV, the cost of living is roughly $107,882 (SmartAsset). We’re not asking for anywhere near that. The salary floor would be a meaningful raise for 11 employees. We think this is a worthy investment to retain hardworking and diligent employees, and recruit new talent.

EdWeek came back initially with a 1% annual increase. Our membership—who struggle to afford rent and groceries, who rely on subsidies and second jobs to make ends meet—resoundingly said that this wasn’t good enough. EdWeek moved to 1.5%, before discretionary raises. It still isn’t enough.

We want to keep the hardworking employees we have, some who have given this company 20+ years. We want to recruit new talent to keep Education Week successful and ever-evolving. But it has to make sense for them to be here. And right now, for many, those numbers don’t add up.

We are asking for a 3.5% annual increase, before discretionary merit raises, and a salary floor of $65,000. Let’s be clear: This is a fair ask, one that is financially solvent and one that doesn’t risk the future of our company. In fact: The future is precisely what we’re worried about.

For 17 months, salary has been on the bargaining table. Despite our bargaining team’s creative and cooperative solutions to bring the unit’s needs closer to the company’s desires, we have again and again received disappointing—and insulting—counteroffers from management. Our staff deserves more.

Elizabeth Bacon: Educators shouldn't fall for the “fallacy” that AI is the inevitable future because technology companies are the ones saying that and they have an incentive to say that.

Jed Williams: “So much of learning is being put into a situation that is cognitively challenging. These tools, fundamentally, are built on relieving the burden of cognitive challenge."

Dylan Kane: The fact that teachers have to use generative AI tools to create student materials “points to larger issues in the teaching profession” around the curricula and classroom resources teachers are given. AI is not “an ideal solution. That’s a Band-Aid for a larger problem.”

Are you a K-12 educator participating in or helping students with the Presidential AI Challenge? I'd love to chat with you! DM or email me: llangreo@educationweek.org.

#EduSky #EduSkyAI #AI #EdTech