In collective bargaining, comparability has always played a central role, influencing conversations at every stage of the process—from preparation to active bargaining sessions, and, if necessary, into impasse procedures. While comparing settlement data across districts is an instinct that can provide useful benchmarks, the New Jersey School Boards Association (NJSBA) continues to emphasize that a district’s foremost consideration should be its ability to pay. This must be evaluated not just in the first year of a settlement, but across the full life of the contract. An agreement that looks manageable in year one may create significant challenges in subsequent years if long-term costs are not carefully projected. (Please note: numbers cited were accurate as of press time).
Budget realities differ depending on factors such as state aid funding levels, enrollment patterns, staffing needs, and community priorities. Because of this, while settlement data from other districts may be informative, it cannot replace a thorough understanding of a district’s own financial position. Board members serving on negotiations committees should be familiar with current bargaining trends and comparative settlement data, not so that other districts’ outcomes dictate their approach, but so they can evaluate how their district aligns with—or diverges from — statewide patterns. For example, knowing where your district stands in areas such as salary, benefits package or daily workload can help a board determine whether competitiveness is a pressing issue or whether local priorities make comparisons less relevant.
When used strategically, comparative data allows boards to:
- Assess competitiveness in salary, work time, and benefits.
- Gauge trends in concessions, such as leave policies or health benefit contributions.
- Understand the broader climate of negotiations across the state before heading to the table.
Being familiar with settlement data also prepares boards to defend their positions during bargaining. Awareness of statewide trends allows a board to anticipate counterarguments, strengthen proposals, and ensure that the district’s financial position is framed as both reasonable and responsible. In this way, settlement data is not only a mirror for comparison but also a shield, helping boards protect fiscal health while pursuing goals that align with long-term stability.
Settlement Rates: A Statewide Snapshot
NJSBA’s ongoing survey of districts with expiring contracts provides a valuable year-to-year picture of progress in negotiations. As of this writing, survey responses from the 166 New Jersey districts with contracts expiring June 30, 2025 (with 67% of districts reporting), show that 43% have reached new agreements, including some tentative settlements awaiting ratification. Among unsettled districts that have provided a status update, approximately 45% are already at impasse or moving toward mediation—a percentage that, while not unprecedented, is notably higher than the numbers reported in the 2024–2025 cycle.
It is not unusual for a handful of districts to carry unresolved contracts into a new school year, and in fact, several from June 2024 remain unsettled, continuing through impasse procedures.
The preliminary data suggest that settlement percentages are on the rise. For teachers’ contracts beginning in the 2025–2026 school year, the average reported settlement increase, inclusive of increment, is 3.72% for 2025–26. This marks a modest but clear uptick compared to the 2024–2025 cycle, which averaged 3.55% in the same year. When projected forward, the increases remain steady through 2028–2029. While these percentages reflect statewide averages, they also highlight the importance of careful planning: even small differences in settlements can have substantial cumulative impact over the life of a contract.
Overall Settlement Rates
| Contracts Beginning 2025-26 | vs. | Contracts Beginning 2024-25 |
| 2025-26 | 3.72% | 2025-26 | 3.55% | ||
| 2026-27 | 3.67% | 2026-27 | 3.54% | ||
| 2027-28 | 3.66% | 2027-28 | 3.56% | ||
| 2028-29 | 3.67% | 2028-29 | 3.60% |
Trends in Starting Salaries and the Salary Guide These overall percentage increases translate into meaningful shifts in starting salaries. One of the most significant trends in recent years is the focus on raising entry-level pay. Districts, facing persistent shortages in certain teaching fields, have recognized that competitive starting salaries are essential to recruiting and retaining talent.
Based on the 2025–26 salary guides submitted to NJSBA, the average BA Step 1 salary has now crossed the $60,000 threshold, with a statewide average of $60,909. This represents a 2.79% increase over the 2024–25 average. The data strongly suggests that boards are directing a greater share of settlement dollars toward the front end of the guide, a strategy that may well be deliberate in light of staffing challenges.
Average Starting Salaries (BA, Step 1)/Average Steps
| Year | Salary | $ Increase over Prior Year Average | % Increase over Prior Year Average | Average # Steps |
| 2015-16 | 50,937 | 515 | 1.02% | 17 |
| 2016-17 | 51,510 | 573 | 1.12% | 17 |
| 2017-18 | 52,153 | 643 | 1.25% | 17 |
| 2018-19 | 52,978 | 825 | 1.58% | 17 |
| 2019-20 | 53,774 | 795 | 1.50% | 17 |
| 2020-21 | 54,682 | 908 | 1.69% | 17 |
| 2021-22 | 55,602 | 920 | 1.68% | 17 |
| 2022-23 | 56,657 | 1,054 | 1.90% | 16 |
| 2023-24 | 57,830 | 1,173 | 2.07% | 16 |
| 2024-25 | 59,254 | 1,424 | 2.46% | 16 |
| 2025-26 | 60,909 | 1,655 | 2.79% | 16 |
The same dataset also highlights a continuing downward trend in guide length. For 2025–26, the average length of a teacher salary guide in New Jersey now narrowly reaches 16 steps. While some districts have long maintained shorter guides that serve their needs well, others have recently accepted “step compression” proposals during bargaining. In these cases, guides are shortened so employees advance more quickly toward the maximum.
From a union perspective, this is generally seen as a win, and boards may accept these proposals if the existing guide includes unworkably small increments or if compression improves recruitment and retention. However, boards must weigh these benefits against potentially steep financial costs. Even a modest shift, such as reducing a guide from 18 steps to 16, may accelerate the growth of the salary base and significantly increase increment costs. Such changes can create long-term budgetary challenges if not modeled carefully in advance.
As NJSBA continues to receive salary guides for 2025–26, the statewide average may dip below 16 steps as additional districts choose a route that shortens guides through step compression.
Longevity Awards
While starting salaries are rising, many districts are also investing in veteran educators through longevity awards. These contractual service incentives vary by district and details are spelled out in the district’s individual collective bargaining agreements. Historically, about three-quarters of districts have provided some form of longevity award. By 2028–29, however, preliminary data suggests this number is on the rise, with agreements on file now reflecting approximately 87% awarding longevity.
% of Districts Reporting Longevity Awards
| Year | Percentage |
| 2022-23 | 72% |
| 2023-24 | 73% |
| 2024-25 | 74% |
| 2025-26 | 74% |
| 2026-27 | 74% |
| 2027-28 | 76% |
| 2028-29 | 87% |
The increase highlights the balancing act districts face in negotiations. On one hand, higher starting salaries help attract new teachers into the profession. On the other, longevity awards ensure that experienced educators, who often serve as mentors and department leaders within a district, are recognized for their long-term contributions. Retaining these seasoned professionals can be just as critical to district stability as recruiting new talent. For boards, however, these awards require careful financial analysis. They represent recurring costs that compound over time, especially in districts with many senior staff approaching eligibility. For this reason, some boards pursue compromise award structures, offering tiered awards or setting caps that recognize service without overcommitting resources. The expansion of these awards into nearly nine out of ten districts underscores their growing importance in the competitive labor market for educators. But boards must approach them strategically, ensuring that recognition of service aligns with sustainable budgeting and supports the district’s long-term educational mission.
Contract Length
Contract length has always reflected a balance between stability and flexibility. Preliminary numbers suggest that districts are retreating slightly from the five-year contracts that briefly surged in 2023–24. Among contracts beginning in 2025–26, 57% are three-year agreements, while four- and five-year contracts account for 21% and 19%, respectively.
Several factors shaped the earlier rise of longer-term contracts, including anticipation of expanded health benefit negotiations in 2028 under Chapter 44 and boards’ efforts to minimize the frequency of negotiations. However, the current shift back to three-year terms may reflect renewed caution. For many boards, a three-year contract remains the “happy medium” – long enough to provide stability, but short enough to preserve flexibility in uncertain fiscal times. A five-year contract negotiated under favorable economic conditions can become burdensome if state aid projections shift or unexpected expenses emerge. By contrast, three-year contracts give districts the opportunity to reassess conditions more regularly while still maintaining consistency in staffing and planning.
Trends in Contract Length
| Contracts Beginning: | 1 Year | 2 Years | 3 Years | 4 Years | 5 Years |
| 2017-18 | 6% | 3% | 79% | 9% | 3% |
| 2018-19 | 3% | 3% | 82% | 10% | 2% |
| 2019-20 | 1% | 2% | 75% | 13% | 9% |
| 2020-21 | 22% | 4% | 60% | 8% | 6% |
| 2021-22 | 16% | 2% | 66% | 8% | 8% |
| 2022-23 | 1% | 3% | 66% | 14% | 16% |
| 2023-24 | 0% | 1% | 49% | 21% | 29% |
| 2024-25 | 3% | 0% | 50% | 22% | 25% |
| 2025-26 | 3% | 0% | 57% | 21% | 19% |
Beyond the Numbers: Board Achievements
Settlement rates and salary guides often dominate headlines, but boards should not overlook the significance of non-salary gains. Concessions secured during bargaining can offset settlement costs and deliver meaningful operational benefits.
Examples include:
- Adjustments to tuition reimbursement policies.
- Limits on payouts for unused sick leave.
- Workday changes that improve instructional efficiency or reduce costs.
Based on survey data, about 49% of contracts beginning in 2025–26 include some form of board achievement. The most common remains adjustments in work time. These changes, though less visible than salary increases, can expand student learning opportunities or provide additional professional development time, both of which ultimately strengthen educational quality.
In this sense, boards must remember that effective bargaining is not only about numbers. It is about shaping agreements that balance fiscal realities with educational priorities, supporting students, teachers, and the long-term health of the district.
Looking Ahead: Best Practices for Boards Entering Negotiations
Negotiations will always be shaped by broader forces: legislative change, shifting economic conditions, and evolving educational needs. The 2025–26 cycle offers lessons that boards can carry forward into their own preparation. Among the best practices:
- Prioritize financial sustainability. Ensure settlement costs can be met across the contract’s full term.
- Use comparability as a guide, not a mandate. Understand statewide trends but remain grounded in local needs.
- Value non-salary concessions. Workday adjustments can produce benefits equal to or greater than salary changes.
- Model long-term scenarios. Consider the impact of guide changes, compression, or longevity provisions five years ahead.
- Communicate transparently. Clear, consistent messaging to the community fosters trust and eases tensions.
By grounding negotiations in these practices, boards can balance fiscal responsibility with competitiveness, reaching agreements that support educational excellence while preserving financial stability.
Accessing Negotiations Data The NJSBA maintains a comprehensive database of teacher collective bargaining agreements, settlement data, salary guides, board gains, and related information. Additionally, we have added an Administrator component to our data that now provides comparative salary data on school business administrators, superintendents, and other administrative positions. This information is available through the Negotiations Data Portal on the NJSBA website and can be accessed on the Labor Relations webpage. For boards preparing to enter or continue negotiations, the portal remains an essential resource for building strategy, benchmarking settlements, and ensuring fiscal proposals are grounded in both local realities and statewide trends.
Annette Goddard serves as the business data manager at the New Jersey School Boards Association. Previously, she worked as a budget analyst in the Office of Management and Budget at the New Jersey Department of the Treasury, before taking time away to raise her five children.
