Tredyffrin Township Archives - Page 77 of 130

Tredyffrin Township

Outsourcing of Custodial Services Would Save T/E School District Almost $1 Million . . . Should this Cost-Cutting Measure be Considered?

March 15, 2011

Last night was the T/E School District’s Finance Committee Meeting. One of the solutions offered to help close the looming deficit for the 2011-12 school district budget is the outsourcing of the custodial services. Outsourcing of the custodial service is expected to save the school district an estimated $950K in the budget. Last night, several members of the district’s custodial union (many of whom are township residents) attended the meeting to make the case to preserve the current custodial arrangement.

From Pete Bannan’s article in today’s Main Line Suburban newspaper on TESD Finance Committee Meeting, Pete reports:

” . . . All the school-board members were present for the meeting and the pleas during the public comments did not fall on deaf ears. Finance chair Kevin Mahoney said the school board wasn’t doing this to save money but is required by state law to balance the budget.

“The options are evaporating,” said Mahoney. “The governor’s budget turned a $2.2-million shortfall into a $3.6-million shortfall. It’s simply a matter of economics.”

Mahoney said no decisions had been made. The proposal is due April 4 and the board has 120 days to review it. Mahoney also said the school board is open to ideas and constructive ways to reach its goals. He suggested the public contact elected state officials, such as State Rep. Warren Kampf, State Sen. Andrew Dinniman and Gov. Tom Corbett, and ask for real pension reform. . . “

Ray Clarke attended the Finance Committee meeting and offers the following notes for Community Matters readers. As always, I am grateful for Ray’s attendance at school district meetings, his analysis and then for sharing them with us!

Monday’s Finance committee meeting vividly illustrated the problem TESD finds itself in.

Very many TENIG (Tredyffrin Easttown Non-Instructional Group) members and others spoke about the value of the current system with experienced, stable, professional and flexible staff, compared to the risks of a possibly cheaper, but high turnover, less trustworthy, and less committed external provider. There was also commentary about the impact on diversity. There was much talk about membership in the T/E Family, and a wise – but unfortunately innocent – CHS student suggested that a family would sit down and work out a fair solution for all its members, rather than focusing on one group. (No prizes for guessing the elephant in this particular family room!)

The out-sourcing analysis does offer a glimmer of hope, though. The district has issued an RFP, responses due May 4, which then must be given to TENIG by May 11. TENIG is allowed 120 days to respond. Let’s assume that out-sourcing would really save the $950,000 estimate. Now, the district has already identified overtime and substitute strategies that would save $150,000 with the existing staff. Is it wishful thinking that the staff could use their professional experience to identify further cost-saving practices, and offer compensation roll-backs and benefits adjustments that could move the impact over 50% towards the expected cost savings? Taxpayers might be very willing to pay a premium for service assurance.

After 90 minutes the committee got down to a review of budget projections. The $1.3 million impact of the PA budget was confirmed, with the $1.1 million reduction in Social Security reimbursement to the 15% “aid ratio” being the real surprise. Apparently it has been at 50% for as long as anyone in the room could remember. I would think that this might be subject to lobbying: where is Kampf on this one? It apparently squarely targets districts like TE that have a low aid ratio.

There was agreement to move ahead to crystallize a number of strategies listed with low or moderate impact on the education program. The biggest ones:

– Change the prescription provider: Impact $250,000
– Eliminate raises for all non-union staff: $395,000
– Integrate Applied Technology into Elementary Core: $300,000
– Plan for a 5% increase in medical costs (vs previous 10%): $412,500
– Fees for extra-curricular activities: $80,000

The result of all of this is $2.3 million of fairly solid strategies (including all the above except the last) and $0.45 million of more speculative ones (including the last). The current scenario assumes $0.15 million of the specualtive ones, for a total of $2.4 million of strategies. Add in Act 1 and Exception tax increases of $3.2 million (3.8%), subtract the $1.3 million state cuts, the $8.9 million deficit comes down to – a mere – $4.6 million.

Board policy does place some limits on use of the Fund Balance, but one obvious use is to pre-fund approved programs implementation-limited by contractual attrition rules. There was an example presented of how $1.1 million could be designated in this way in 2011/12. (I worry that there might be a little double counting with the above $300,000 AT elimination – does that need attrition?).

It’s fairly clear that the $29 million Fund Balance could absorb the $4.6 million draw down, but beyond that the picture is bleak. Annual deficit projections of $10 million or more (after Act 1 tax increases, driven by benefits) show that the district can not afford even flat TEEA salaries without the fund balance being wiped out in 2 years.

Here’s where the State House Bill to allow teacher furloughs to balance the budget comes into play. According to Dr Waters, that would allow action even with a CBA in place. However, Dr Brake reported that although the bill was up for Committee hearings, those hearings were abruptly cancelled (!). But the legislative process does continue, apparently.

We know that there are some actions involving furloughs that are already approved as having minimal educational impact. Others, like modest increases in class sizes, might be similarly low impact. Getting to $10 million can hardly be done without real impact, though. When it comes down to students and jobs versus union compensation, we might find out who is really part of the TE Family.

Gov. Corbett’s Proposed Budget Indicates -9.69% Change in State Public Education Funding for T/E School District

March 14, 2011

6 Comments

The dust has begun to settle on Gov. Corbett’s proposed budget. Although most areas of government were not exempt from cuts, the decrease state funding to higher education and school districts may have the greatest effect on local residents.

In reviewing the governor’s budget proposal for public school funding, Sen. Andy Dinniman offered the school districts current state funding vs the proposed funding.

The table below from Dinniman’s website (www.senatordinniman.com) is interesting because it focuses specifically on the state funding to our local school districts, including TESD. The statistics indicate the current funding for public education versus the funding contained in the governor’s proposed budget. The decrease in state funding ranges from $446,269 in the Great Valley School District to Downingtown School District’s $2.9 million. The funding loss is due to Corbett’s proposed elimination of the Accountability Block Grant and Education Assistance programs.

Although Tredyffrin Easttown School District is grateful not to be in the $2 million + budget cut category of West Chester and Downingtown school districts, we are far from exempt. According to the table below, TESD proposed decrease in state funding equates to an approximate -9.69% change or $479,569.

“Governor Corbett’s proposal for basic education will be disastrous for our Commonwealth’s public schools,” Dinniman said. “Full-day kindergarten classes, reduced class sizes and after school tutoring programs are at risk of elimination.”

“The difficulty is that while the governor can wave the flag and say, ‘We’re not raising taxes,’ he has written a script that will mean significant local property tax increases and much heavier burden on local taxpayers, and that is indeed troubling,” Dinniman said.

It will be curious to see if Corbett’s significant budget cuts to public education enters in to the discussion at tonight’s TESD Finance Committee meeting. The Finance Committee is at 7:30 PM in the Tredyffrin/Easttown Administration Office (TEAO) at 940 West Valley Road, Suite 1700 in Wayne. Click here for the Finance Committee agenda.

March Ahead Sunday, It’s Daylight Saving Time

March 12, 2011

Comments

Clocks will spring forward at 2 AM Sunday as Daylight Saving Time commences. Don’t forget to change your clocks.

Why do we observe Daylight Saving Time, other than to enjoy an extra hour of summer sunshine? Daylight Saving Time is a way of getting more light out of the day . . . the sun appears to rise one hour later in the morning, when people are usually asleep anyway, and sets one hour later in the evening, seeming to stretch the day longer.

For one night (tonight) we have the reality of 60 fewer minutes of sleep, but ahead are many months of an extra hour of evening sunlight. Starting tomorrow, there will be a little more “day” in everyone’s day.

But, why change the clocks at all? Is it really worth having to readjust our internal clock by an hour twice a year? Do you know who came up with this idea of saving daylight?

Benjamin Franklin often receives credit for the idea of what we now call Daylight Saving Time. As an American delegate in Paris in 1784, Franklin published an essay titled “An Economical Project,” in which he made the simple argument that natural light is cheaper than artificial light. However, what many people probably don’t know is that Franklin’s essay was written, rather tongue-in-cheek; he actually wrote it as a joke.

Franklin knew that the Parisians were notorious for ‘sleeping-in’, and he wrote in the essay that he was accidentally awaken one morning at 6 AM, only to “discover” that the sun actually shines at that hour. This got Franklin to thinking and he calculated that if he slept until noon (as he wrote was usual in Paris!), and then stayed awake six hours later in the evening, he would have “wasted” the free daylight and would have to pay for it with artificial light.

With a humorous bent, Franklin went on to offer some “regulations” that might aid in saving money. These included a tax on every window built with shutters, rationing candles, limited horse-drawn carriages on the streets after sunset, and ringing church bells and firing cannons at sunrise to wake everyone up. He wrote, “Oblige a man to rise at four in the morning, and it is probable he will go willingly to bed at eight in the evening.”

Franklin’s idea of making better use of daylight hours . . . “saving” daylight actually was not put into practice until the 20th century. The practice of setting the clocks ahead one hour in the spring in order to make better use of the daylight hours was first put into action during WWI as an effort to save fuel.

Not everyone in the U.S. makes the switch from standard time. The exceptions are Hawaii, most of Arizona, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam and the Northern Marianas.

So, most of the nation will try to adjust to “springing ahead” or “marching ahead” an hour before going to bed tonight (or scrambling to do it Sunday morning).

It’s not all good news for light-lovers . . . the change does mean an hour less sleep tonight!

Labor Dispute Between TEEA Teacher Union & T/E School District . . . Claiming Unfair Labor Practices re Online Course Programming

March 11, 2011

68 Comments

Teacher contract negotiations between the union, Tredyffrin Easttown Education Association (TEEA) and the T/E School District will not begin until 2012 but . . . apparently that has not slowed the filing of a labor dispute between the union and the school district.

Here is the abbreviated background on the lawsuit. In December 2009, the teacher union (TEEA) filed charges of unfair practices with the PA Labor Board against the T/E School District. The union alleged that the school district transferred some teacher’s work by offering students online computer courses, known as E-learning. The first year of the pilot program, in school year 2009-10, the school district offered four courses. In the 2010-11 school year, the program was expanded to 25 courses. In March 2010, the teacher union expanded its allegations to include the additional courses.

If I understand the union’s position, they contend that the school district was offering courses to students that should be taught by the teachers. The union contends that the work of instructing and assessing students taking online courses is no different than work performed by teachers in the classroom.

The school district argued that utilizing technology for E-learning courses falls outside the scope of teacher bargaining. They also defended their position on E-learning is no different than the district offering alternative physical education courses, in-home instruction due to illness or medical needs, community leadership classes, etc. It is my understanding that the online courses offered through E-Learning, were not courses that were ever instructed by teachers. Examples of special or advanced online courses selected by students included Constitutional Law, Arabic and Japanese. The school district viewed that meeting the needs of students with special or advanced courses as no different as meeting the needs of those students requiring homebound instruction. However, the labor dispute tells us that the teacher union disagreed with the school district.

During the last 12 months, testimony and hearings have been held between the union, the school district and the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board. Two weeks ago, in a Decision and Order from the PA Labor Relations Board, T/E School District was ordered to cease and desist the online coursework program (e-Learning); the order to become effective 20 days following the February 28, 2011 date on the order.

So what does this mean? If the school district accepted the February 28 decision from the Labor Board, the e-Learning program would end March 20, 2011. Those students currently enrolled in the program would have to end their courses and consequently, would not receive course credit. The school district is appealing the Labor Board decision. Because of the school district’s appeal, the current students enrolled in e-Learning programming will be able to complete their online courses and receive credit.

To read the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board decision, click here. Here is the official statement from the T/E School District:

Due to the outcome of a labor dispute between the T/E School District and the Tredyffrin Easttown Education Association (TEEA), the District will not be offering any online courses for the 2011-2012 school year. The TEEA claimed an unfair labor practice because the program allegedly transferred work outside the bargaining unit. The District asserted the right to design and implement programs of educational benefit to students. On February 28, 2011, the hearing officer ruled in favor of TEEA, and the District has been ordered to cease and desist its online coursework program. Because the District is appealing this decision, students currently enrolled in online courses will be able to continue for the current school year. However, absent a different outcome on appeal, the online course program will not be available in the 2011-2012 school year. Students who have applied for the online coursework program for 2011-2012 have been individually contacted by counselors.

Although the district has appealed the decision, it appears the e-Leaning program will not be available for 2011-12 school year. If the appeal is lost, the online programming will be suspended.

School districts are offering online coursework programming across the country. With advanced technology, is this something that we believe should be part of the district curriculum? According to the labor dispute filing, the school district paid a range of $300 – $800 per student depending upon the course and the length of the course. Certainly, online programming is less expensive than the hiring of a teacher for one or two students wishing to take a particular course.

Is there not a responsibility for the school district to meet the needs of all students . . . whether it is a homebound student, a physically challenged student or a student who requires advanced coursework that cannot be offered by the district, due to specific problems, such as enrollment requirements?

With a labor dispute and the ongoing angst that the situation causes between the school district and the teacher union, what will this say for the future of the contract negotiations?

Cost — how much has the school district expended on legal fees to date fighting this labor dispute? In this economic climate, can the taxpayers afford this legal battle?

I am struggling to understand why the Labor Board made their decision. If these online courses were not previously taught in the district, and if there is not sufficient enrollment for these specific courses to be taught, than how is it affecting the teachers? And no curriculum/programming cuts were made to accommodate the e-Learning program.

What’s the saying, ‘pick your battles’? With teacher contract negotiations next year, was this the battle the teacher union needed to pick.

—————————————————————————————-

Additional educational notes:

There is an important T/E School District Finance Meeting this Monday, March 14.

State Sen. Andy Dinniman has come out with a statement concerning Gov. Corbett’s budget and the impact of the budget cuts to public education. I plan to address Dinniman remarks and the effects that the budget cuts will have on area school districts. Sen. Dinniman has made his feelings about the education cuts public and we also know that he supports school vouchers, albeit with admendments. If you recall last week, I sent an email to State Rep. Warren Kampf asking him for a statement in regards to school vouchers. I have not heard from Rep. Kampf, however earlier this week I spoke to his Chief of Staff, Sean Dempsy. Dempsy told me that Rep. Kampf had received my email and would issue a response to me by the end of the week. So I will look forward to Rep. Kampf’s email by the end of today.

Identities of Suspected Child Molester Priests Now Public . . . Four Priests on the List are from Local Tredyffrin Parishes

March 10, 2011

24 Comments

This has not been a good week for some local Roman Catholic churches.

Twenty-one Philadelphia area priests received sex probe suspensions because of a grand jury report released in February. On the Philadelphia archdiocese suspension of priests, the New York Times (www.NYTimes.com ) is reporting, “The Mass suspension was the single-most sweeping in the history of the sexual-abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Church in the United States.” The priests who have been suspended cannot celebrate Mass or hear confessions; they were only given a few hours to leave their parishes.

Unfortunately, the Philadelphia archdiocese was a bit ‘delayed’ in releasing the identities of the suspected child molester priests. The names are now public and it is my understanding the priests have been removed from ministry while their cases are reviewed.

National headlines have read ‘Philadelphia priests’ suspended so I did not expect to recognize any of the priests or parishes on the list. It is very disturbing to learn that four of the priests suspended for sexual abuse and inappropriate behavior with minors are from our local Main Line community:

Monsignor John A. Close of St. Catherine of Siena in Wayne, Pa.
Rev. Steven J. Harris of St. Issac Jogues Catholic Church in Wayne, Pa.
Rev. Daniel J. Hoy of Our Lady of the Assumption in Strafford, Pa.
Fr. Peter Talocci of St. Patrick’s in Malvern, Pa.

Remember the sexual abuse scandal in the Boston archdiocese in 2002. The Boston Globe coverage of the criminal prosecution of five priests gave national limelight to the child molester issue in the Roman Catholic Church. (The Globe won a Pulitzer Prize for their coverage). The newspaper’s front-page coverage of this issue encouraged other victims to come forward, which resulted in more lawsuits. The cost of legal defense for the Boston archdiocese was staggering. With the identities of the Philadelphia priests now known, we may see a similar situation to Boston with other victims coming forward with allegations of abuse.

It’s Official . . . Announcing Candidates for Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors & Tredyffrin-Easttown School Board!

March 9, 2011

5 Comments

Tuesday, March 8th was the deadline to file petitions for Pennsylvania’s May 17, 2011 primary election.

Special thanks goes to Mike Broadhurst, chair of the Tredyffrin Township Republican Committee and Dariel Jamieson, chair of the Tredyffrin Township Democratic Committee for providing the names of candidates for the Board of Supervisors and the Tredyffrin Easttown School Board. Mike and Dariel have agreed to supply the bios and/or resumes of each of the supervisor and school director candidates which I will provide in a future post on Community Matters.

Note on School Director candidates: To become a school board candidate, you must file a petition signed by at least 10 qualified voters of the school district for the political party with which the petition will be filed. It is my understanding that all school board candidates are cross-filing. To cross-file in a primary election (that is, to run on both political parties), a registered Democrat or Republican must circulate a proper petition for the other party. The petition must contain signatures as previously mentioned. If elected on both party ballots in the May primary, a candidate will appear on both party ballots in the general election in November.

The candidates for the May 17, 2011 primary election are as follows:

The Tredyffrin Township Republican Committee has endorsed the following candidates for the office of Tredyffrin-Easttown School Director:

Region 1: James Bruce **
Region 1: Tara G. LaFiura
Region 2: Kristine Graham
Region 2: Elizabeth Mercogliano

The Tredyffrin Township Democratic Committee has endorsed the following candidates for the office of Tredyffrin-Easttown School Director:

Region 1: Karen Cruickshank **
Region 1: Jerry Henige
Region 2: Scott Dorsey
Region 2: Jenny Wessels

The Easttown Township Republican Committee has endorsed the following candidate for the office of Tredyffrin-Easttown School Director:

Easttown, Region 3: Peter Motel **

The Easttown Township Democratic Committee has endorsed the following candidate for the office of Tredyffrin-Easttown School Director:

Easttown, Region 3: No Candidate

For Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors, the Tredyffrin Township Republican Committee has endorsed the following candidates:

Supervisor at Large: Michael Heaberg **
Supervisor at Large: Kristen Kirk Mayock
District 1 East: Paul Olson **
District 3 West: John DiBuonaventuro **

For Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors, the Tredyffrin Township Democratic Committee has endorsed the following candidates:

Supervisor at Large: Molly Duffy
Supervisor at Large: Ernani (Ernie) Falcone
District 1 East: Victoria (Tory) Snyder
District 3 West: No Candidate

For Tredyffrin Township Auditor, the Tredyffrin Township Republican Committee has endorsed the following candidate:

Bryan Humbarger

For Tredyffrin Township Auditor, the Tredyffrin Township Democratic Committee has endorsed the following candidate:

No Candidate

For Chester County Magisterial District Judge, District Court 15-4-01, the Tredyffrin Township Republican Committee has endorsed the following candidate:

Jeremy Blackburn **

For Chester County Magisterial District Judge, District Court 15-4-01, the Tredyffrin Township Democratic Committee has endorsed the following candidate:

Analisa Sondergaard

** Incumbent

“Don’t Read my Lips; Read my Budget” . . . so said Gov. Corbett at today’s Budget Address

March 8, 2011

8 Comments

Gov. Tom Corbett delivered his budget speech at midday to a joint assembly of the House and Senate, suggesting “Don’t read my lips; read my budget.” For a full text of his speech, click here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/50290282/Corbett-Budget-Speech

In his opening remarks, Corbett’s presented an overview of his budget including “ . . The substance of this budget is built on four core principles: Fiscal discipline, limited government, free enterprise and reform. . . ” Corbett’s fiscal year 2011-12 budget totals $27.3 billion, but no new taxes.

There has been much discussion concerning the economic woes facing school districts across the state. In his budget address, the Governor supports letting the taxpayers decide . . .

” . . . Now, we all know that there’s an elephant in the room when it comes to education funding: The property tax. Too often we have seen school boards raise property taxes to avoid hard and necessary choices. It’s human nature. When you’re spending someone else’s money it’s easier to say yes than no. I believe any new property tax increases beyond inflation should be put on the ballot. If school boards can’t say no, maybe the taxpayers will. Let’s listen to the taxpayers on this one. . . “

The governor takes on the teacher unions with teacher furlough remarks,

” . . . At the same time we need to give school boards some breathing room. There are too many mandates that tie the hands of local school boards. This administration is committed to curbing these mandates, including one that violates every law of economics: the inability to furlough employees when there isn’t the money to pay them. It puts the entire enterprise of public education at risk. . . “

Specifically, how did the Department of Education fair in Corbett’s budget? A quick review indicates that education will receive an expected major cut in funding. The proposed cuts to education include a 10 percent cut in basic education (K-12), which is a loss of $550 million across the state. The budget also eliminates all $260 million in grants that are being given this year to school districts to invest in learning, including pre-K, full-day kindergarten and class-size reduction in kindergarten through third grade.

In his speech, Corbett asked public school officials to consider pay freezes; calculating that each year of this cost-saving measure would save school districts $400 million. Corbett said that he was returning the state education funding to the pre-stimulus funding level.

Addressing the state workers, unions, pensions and collective bargaining, Corbett’s approach was direct –

” . . . In Pennsylvania, we will be looking for salary roll backs and freezes from state employees as well as asking them to increase their contributions for healthcare benefits. We also need to start the conversation about the necessary repairs to our public retirement system.

I want to be clear about this to our union leaders. Collective bargaining doesn’t mean some ill-defined middle ground. It means finding the spot where things work. In this case it is going to have to work to the good of the taxpayer or it’s not going to work at all. Let’s find that place and meet there. Let’s keep things working. Neither side need lose for the taxpayers to win. We need to act on our financial challenges now, before they act on us. . . “

Although Corbett did not use the word, ‘voucher’ in his budget address, he was specific about his desire for school choice . . .

” . . . Pennsylvania needs to re-think how best to educate our children. We simply can’t work within a broken system. We need to change the whole system. We need a new set of priorities: child, parent, and teacher – and in that order. What we have now in too many places are schools that don’t work. Families are trapped in failing schools, or schools that are a bad fit. We need to develop a system of portable education funding; something a student can take with him or her to the school that best fits their needs. One size does not fit all. But as it now stands, not all get to choose. Let’s give them school choice. . . “

During his budget address, the Governor referred to the ‘Budget Dashboard’ available online. The dashboard is on the state website, is user-friendly and provides an easy access for information of individual state agencies. Here is a link to that reference:

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/imageserver/budget2011/GBD_2011.html

If you are interested, here is a link to the entire budget — all 1,182 pages. If you decide up upload the file, remember this is very large file and suggest patience.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/50277977/2011-12-Budget-Document

If Ardmore Transit Center can be built without a new Train Station, could Paoli Transportation Center suffer the same fate?

March 7, 2011

4 Comments

Question for the Day: Where do you build a new transit center without building the new train station?

Answer: Apparently in Ardmore.

According to an article by Cheryl Allison in yesterday’s Main Line Times, the latest plan presented for the Ardmore Transit Center includes parking garage, luxury apartments, restaurants and retail shops but no new train station . . . at least not until there is additional public funding.

The Ardmore Transit Center developer, Carl Dranoff of Dranoff Properties presented his newest plan last week to a subcommittee of Lower Merion Board of Commissioners. Due to $35 million funding gap on the original transit center plan, Dranoff scaled back his Ardmore Station redevelopment project, and presented his new ‘phased’ approach, which calls for adding a new train station at a later date.

I thought that the impetus for the Ardmore Transit Center project was a new train station. The project received government funding based on that concept so how is it possible to exclude the train station in the initial phase. Dranoff thinks that with the addition of private funding to existing public money construction on this $60 million scaled-back phase could start by next year. The new plan calls for adding the train station when additional public funding becomes available in the future. I must be missing something, isn’t this the ‘cart before the horse’? Shouldn’t the project, the ‘transit’ project, start with the new train station ‘first’ and then add the other components to the train station instead of the other way around?

In addition to deleting a new train station in the initial phase of the Ardmore Transit Center project, the plan includes a dramatic reduction in parking, from 500 spaces to 270 spaces. We know availability of parking is a long-standing problem in Ardmore; will the reduced parking be adequate?

Do not get me wrong, I think that creating a new ‘Main Street’ development concept in Ardmore will revitalize the community and do much for the local business community. However, how do they rationalize the government money that has already been used in the development phase of the plan, if the project no longer includes the train station component? Dranoff’s new phased plan calls for a facelift to the existing Ardmore train station, but little else.

In the past, I have drawn comparisons between the proposed Ardmore Transit Center and the Paoli Transportation Center projects. Looking at Dranoff’s new phase approach to the proposed transit center, I for one would not be pleased if the Paoli Transportation Center took the same direction in its development.

A new train station needs to be the focal point of Paoli’s redevelopment plan; the starting point of the project. Parking, retail, restaurants and office buildings should all be part of the overall concept of the Paoli Transportation Center but as far as I am concerned, without a new train station, there should be no Paoli Transportation Center project.

Speaking of Paoli Transportation Center . . . where do we stand with that project?

Prior posts on Ardmore Transit Center & Paoli Transportation Center:

Septa pulls 10 million in financial assistance from Ardmore Train Station Project, what does this mean for Paoli Transportation Center?

Will Ardmore Transit Centers funding issues impact the future of Paoli Transportation Center?

Help Save the Trees . . . Vine Day at Cool Valley Preserve Tomorrow!

March 4, 2011

2 Comments

Saturday, March 5th
Cool Valley Preserve Vine Day!
9 AM

Save the trees! Chester County Open Land Conservancy volunteers continue to wage their battle against the invasive vines that are strangling the trees in the Nature Preserves . . . and could use some help tomorrow.

This is a great opportunity to get some fresh air, work with some of your neighbors and make a lasting impact on the Nature Preserves. Saturday, March 5, starting at 9 AM is the Cool Valley Preserve ‘Vine Day’. Although the volunteers generally work 3-4 hours, any help that you can offer would be greatly appreciated!

Directions to Cool Valley Preserve: Off Swedesford Road turn into Shadow Oak Drive. Follow to the end (circle). Turn left at circle one block to Cool Valley Road and turn right to Preserve entrance.

Volunteers are asked to meet in the Cool Valley Preserve entrance at 9 AM. Any questions, contact Ray Clarke, 610-578-0358. All that’s needed are protective clothing, gloves and, if you have them, tools such as loppers, pruners and hand saws to supplement Open Land Conservancy’s supply.

Help Save the Trees!

How to be Smarter about School Reform . . . in the words of Bill Gates

March 3, 2011

16 Comments

Here is an interesting op-ed school article which appeared in this week’s Washington Post. The opinion article was written by one of the country’s famous billionaires, Bill Gates and addresses school reform. In his remarks, Gates takes on teacher seniority, suggesting that longevity and advanced degrees of teachers does not necessarily equate to an increase in student achievement.

How to be smarter about school reform
Bill Gates, co-chair of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
This column appeared in The Washington Post, Feb 27, 2011

As the nation’s governors gathered in Washington for their annual meeting, they were grappling with more than state budget deficits. They’re confronting deep education deficits as well.

Over the past four decades, the per-student cost of running our K-12 schools has more than doubled, while our student achievement has remained virtually flat. Meanwhile, other countries have raced ahead. The same pattern holds for higher education. Spending has climbed, but our percentage of college graduates has dropped compared with other countries.

To build a dynamic 21st century economy and offer every American a high-quality education, we need to flip the curve. For more than 30 years, spending has risen while performance stayed relatively flat. Now we need to raise performance without spending a lot more.

When you need more achievement for less money, you have to change the way you spend. This year, the governors are launching “Complete to Compete,” a program to help colleges get more value for the money they spend. It will develop metrics to show which colleges graduate more students for less money, so we can see what works and what doesn’t. In K-12, we know more about what works.

We know that of all the variables under a school’s control, the single most decisive factor in student achievement is excellent teaching. It is astonishing what great teachers can do for their students.

Yet compared with the countries that outperform us in education, we do very little to measure, develop and reward excellent teaching. We have been expecting teachers to be effective without giving them feedback and training.

To flip the curve, we have to identify great teachers, find out what makes them so effective, and transfer those skills to others so more students can enjoy top teachers and high achievement.

To this end, our foundation is working with nearly 3,000 teachers in seven urban school districts to develop fair and reliable measures of teacher effectiveness that are tied to gains in student achievement. Research teams are analyzing videos of more than 13,000 lessons — focusing on classes that showed big student gains so it can be understood how the teachers did it. At the same time, teachers are watching their own videos to see what they need to do to improve their practice.

Our goal is a new approach to development and evaluation that teachers endorse and that helps all teachers improve. The value of measuring effectiveness is clear when you compare teachers to members of other professions — farmers, engineers, computer programmers, even athletes. These professionals are more advanced than their predecessors because they have clear indicators of excellence, their success depends on performance, and they eagerly learn from the best.

The same advances haven’t been made in teaching because we haven’t built a system to measure and promote excellence. The United States spends $50 billion a year on automatic salary increases based on teacher seniority. It’s reasonable to suppose that teachers who have served longer are more effective, but the evidence says that’s not true. After the first few years, seniority seems to have no effect on student achievement.

Another standard feature of school budgets is a bump in pay for advanced degrees. Such raises have almost no impact on achievement, but every year they cost $15 billion that would help students more if spent in other ways.

Perhaps the most expensive assumption embedded in school budgets is the view that reducing class size is the best way to improve student achievement. This belief has driven school budget increases for more than 50 years. U.S. schools have almost twice as many teachers per student as they did in 1960, yet achievement is roughly the same.

What should policymakers do? One approach is to get more students in front of top teachers by identifying the top 25 percent of teachers and asking them to take on four or five more students. Part of the savings could then be used to give the top teachers a raise. (In a 2008 survey funded by the Gates Foundation, 83 percent of teachers said they would be happy to teach more students for more pay.) The rest of the savings could go toward improving teacher support and evaluation systems, to help more teachers become great.

Compared with other countries, America has spent more and achieved less. If there’s any good news in that, it’s that we’ve had a chance to see what works and what doesn’t. That sets the stage for a big change that everyone knows we need: building exceptional teacher personnel systems that identify great teaching, reward it and help every teacher get better.

It’s the thing we’ve been missing, and it can turn our schools around.

← Older Posts

Newer Posts →

Pattye Benson

Community Matters