"This is really a winning situation for everyone," [communication director for the MEA Doug] Pratt said. "Schools get to pay the extra amount over the long haul and open spots for new teachers."We're coming up on graduation day, and there's a lot of homegrown talent that is going to leave the state if there are no jobs for them." (emphasis mine)

Maybe Pratt thinks we're too dumb to notice, but this proposal doesn't create a single new job. It's a retread of existing jobs in teaching. The same number of teachers remain. The theory of the MEA proposal is that the new teachers will make less than current teachers, and that that will save the district money. However, in addition to the new teachers' lower salaries, the districts will have to pay for the old teachers retirement benefits including healthcare. In a few years, the freshman teachers will climb the salary ladder and you will have the same problem you have now in addition to a bunch of retired teachers that you are paying for as well. How is this "a winning situation for everyone" again? The only benefit of this proposal is to the MEA. There is no way around the math no matter how long they stretch out the supposed pay-back period. Even there, spreading the cost out over 30 years rather than 5 is a false premise in itself because they don't put healthcare into the numbers. Any way you slice it, it's long term pain for short-term gain, even though the latter isn't true in and of itself!