Pattye Benson

Community Matters

Andy Dinniman

Looks like Harrisburg Wants Local School Districts to solve their Own Budget Problems

March 30, 2011
33 Comments

Following-up on my post from yesterday concerning T/E School District’s financial outlook and the ongoing debate on how to close the $3.5 million+ budget gap, I don’t know how much help we can expect from Harrisburg.

Yesterday, at a Senate Appropriations Committee meeting, the Acting Education Secretary, Ronald Tomalis took a hard-line when it came to school district budgets, suggesting among other things, that they should have planned better with the federal stimulus money. He stood firm in his defense of Corbett’s proposed $1.2 billion buts to public and higher education.

Tomalis attitude towards successful public school education mirrored some of those that have commented on Community Matters. He suggests that success is not measured by how much school districts spend but rather there are other significant factors . . . quality of teachers, class size, etc. that make a difference. More money spent does not necessarily correlate to better education.

In reviewing the state’s public education funding in prior years, Tomalis noted that the budget has more than doubled over the last 10 years but that enrollment has dropped by 50,000 students, which translates to a higher per student cost. Interestingly, he suggests that the improvement in academic achievement has not increased as more money has been spent. Rather than looking at the money spent per child to educate as a tool to measure success, Tomalis’ theory is that graduation rates and test scores present a more accurate picture of individual school district success.

In looking at what has driven the upward spiral of spending in public education, Tomalis directed criticism at school district spending habits in recent years. He noted that $1.1 billion has gone toward teacher and administration raises rather than educational programming since the recession began in 2008, citing labor costs are determined at the local level. According to Tomalis, Corbett’s suggestion of a one-year salary freeze for public education employees was an attempt to help the school districts with their budget problems. In addition to saving school districts an estimated $400 million with this one-year freeze, Tomalis believes that as many as 4,000 public school jobs could be saved as a result of the salary freeze.

Many have commented on Community Matters that the fate of our local school district budget deficit needs to be addressed in Harrisburg but there seems an attitude from Tomalis that the problem rests squarely on the shoulders of local elected school board members. “We hire these leaders at the local levels to make the tough decisions,” Tomalis said. “And we don’t just hire them to lead in good budget times, but we hire them to lead in tough times, too”. Strong words from Harrisburg that sound a bit like a ‘you deal with it’ attitude towards the school boards. Interesting. I am hopeful that Tomalis’ remarks also include an expectation that local state representatives are to help their respective school districts manage their budget problems.

In discussing how school districts could find savings, Tomalis suggested that districts could share superintendents or share contracts for business operations. Another cost-saving suggestion was merging of school districts. There are currently 500 school districts in the state, and it is believed that state funding could be improved with fewer districts.

Much of the discussion at the committee meeting centered on what the state budget cuts will mean to the local school districts. How are the districts going to meet the demands of their budget? For many districts, the state funding cuts are going to force local property taxes to skyrocket. When questioned about the dramatic property tax increases for some residents violates Corbett’s pledge ‘not’ to raise taxes, Tomalis vehemently disagreed. I disagree with Tomalis disagreeing . . . if Pennsylvanians end up with a higher property tax bill because of state cuts in public education spending, that is a tax increase. I do not believe by pushing the increase down to the local level, removes the responsibility of the tax increase from our elected officials shoulders in Harrisburg. Is it fair for the governor’s budget to force school districts to raise property taxes?

Sen. Andy Dinniman questioned that some groups are saying there is potential that the budget cuts could destroy public education. Tomalis denied that there would be an impact to the quality of education with the budget cuts; suggesting that the federal stimulus money was the cause for the cuts. The stimulus money was an intended one-time use and now with that money gone, the state is left with a budget hole to fill. Accordingly, Tomalis blamed the school districts for not better planning for the end of stimulus money. “If you were told again and again that this is a funding cliff that is coming in two years, and you were advised not to make an expenditure that is going to lock in for five or 10 years down the road, it does matter,” said Tomalis.

In reading the transcript from the meeting, other education topics were discussed, including voucher program (Tomalis is a supporter), teacher furloughing, charter schools, etc. In addition there was discussion at the Senate Appropriations Committee meeting centered on higher education and the severe funding cuts to state universities and colleges. For the purposes of this post, I decided to focus my comments on the local school district funding issue.

Tomalis takes his education platform to the House Appropriations committee today.

T/E School District Budget Options . . . Pay Waiver, Demotion & Furlough Discussion

March 29, 2011
6 Comments

I attended the T/E marathon ‘Budget Workshop’ last night. For nearly 3 hours, the school board members and district administration waded through 30+ slides which contained so many charts and graphs, it was hard to take it all in. The slides and their detailed explanation took up the vast majority of the evening with probably the last 30 min. devoted to audience questions. The workshop included three new cost-saving ideas that were ‘new’ to me – a ‘pay waiver’, demotion and furlough.

There was a pivotal slide labeled ‘Options to Close Remaining Shortfall’ that grabbed my attention. Slide #26 indicates the remaining budget shortfall (after taking budget strategies) at $3,570,509. Two options listed to close the shortfall – (1) Outsourcing of custodial services $950K and (2) ‘Pay Waiver for remaining staff (TEEA and TENIG) $3,000,000. We understand the outsourcing option; an RFP has gone out with a return date of early April. An announcement detailing the results of the RFP should be available early May.

What is a ‘pay waiver’? If I understood it correctly, the school district would ask the teachers union not to take their contract guaranteed pay increase for 2011-12. This would be a one-time pay waiver (a give-back of sorts). Unlike a salary freeze that could be retroactive (as in the 6-month salary freeze in Radnor’s recent contract) or a salary freeze the first year but larger increases in the second year of a contract, a pay waiver would not be made up in a future contract. There was no indication that TEEA has been approached with this proposal. Although several school board members praised the teachers, they also suggested the reality and the severity of the economic times, call for a ‘shared sacrifice’ by the taxpayers, teachers, etc. This is a bold proposal and it will be interesting to see if there is any comment or discussion from TEEA.

The other ‘get my attention’ moment of the evening was Dr. Waters suggesting that the district would explore ‘demotion’ and ‘furlough’ as possible ways to close the shortfall. He cited PA School Code 1151 in regards to demotion. I did a bit of research and determined that Section 1151 of the School Code provides for the demotion of professional employees. While this section does not make mention of demotions for economic reasons, case law has established that school districts are permitted to demote professional employees for economic reasons, so long as such demotions are not arbitrary and capricious under the law. Expanding the provisions of Section 1124 would similarly allow school districts to furlough employees for economic reasons.

What would this mean for the school district budget? Far less staff would be affected and programming would be maintained. It appears that by law, the school district superintendent would be empowered to review the entire school system as a whole to identify where reduction in staff could occur. Very interesting news. I sensed a real determination from Dr. Waters that he was doing everything in his power to help with this budget deficit. Although he certainly did not say that he would evoke demotion or furlough measures, there will be further discussion on the subject.

Although there was much other discussion in regards to cost-cutting measures, these particular suggestions were ‘new’ to me and caught my attention. I left the meeting last night with a real sense of the seriousness of the financial situation and of the battle to close the $3.5 million remaining shortfall.

I would strongly suggest that State Rep Warren Kampf and Sen Andy Dinniman need to play a role in our local school district issues – I’d like to see a public forum with their attendance. I believe that I recently read that Kampf attended a Phoenixville School Board meeting (or one of their subcommittee meetings?). If Kampf or one of his staff workers is reading Community Matters, I am making a public appeal that he attend a T/E School Board meeting. . . . aside from serving as our State Representative, Kampf lives in the T/E school district and I would like to see him personally involved in our school district’s budget issues.

Ray Clarke also attended the budget workshop and provided his editorial comments.. It is interesting to have both perspectives of the evening and I thank Ray for his notes below:

Tonight’s TESD “Budget Workshop” did not really live up to its title, but was nevertheless an informative, if a little selective, exposition of the underlying forces driving the district’s finances – and driving them to steep deficits.

  • The real estate-based gravy train has run off the rails – the tax base is declining and there’s no sign of recovery in transfer taxes
  • The state is exacerbating the problem – reduction in the social security reimbursement, flat special education funding despite increasing enrollment, and a tax increase formula that will limit property tax increases to around ~1% for at least the next couple of years. There’s even talk of eliminating “Exceptions” and reducing the PSERS match – but that last would just be insane.
  • As it is, PSERS will be the biggest expense increase – up $1 million each year for the next two years, $1.5 for each of the two years after that and $3.5 million in 2015/16
  • The district has reduced staff by 60 in the last two years, but the vagaries of grade and school specific demographics will require a staff increase next year despite likely flat enrollment.
  • New news: there are tools within the PA School Code that would allow for selective staff “demotions” to meet budget deficit situations. This may be a way to implement previously attrition-dependent changes such as the teaching period changes at the high school.
  • With all known realistic strategies and a 3.77% property tax increase including the now-approved exceptions, the 2011/12 deficit would still be $3.6 million
  • Other ideas continue to be studied: $400,000 of reasonably tangible and realistic notions, and maybe an equal amount of less tangible but possibly realistic ones. A few multi-million dollar ideas with profound impact on the culture and educational quality are further on the list, but seem likely only in extremis.
  • Which brings us to the big issues, laid out individually by the administration: outsource custodial services and obtain a “pay waiver” from both the TEEA and TENIG. There was no indication that the Board has received any proposal from the unions, much less one that would forgo (“until better times”) $3 million of pay increases. However, there was considerable emphasis on the need for shared sacrifice, and it is starkly apparent how such a move could bring the deficit somewhat back into range. There was no commentary from the TEEA – unlike from the TENIG representatives, who, as at previous meetings, appealed to emotion rather than the pocket book. As that process evolves, it would be great if TENIG could quantify the cost savings they claim they could bring to the district.

Bottom line: my view is that the district continues to make the best of the hand it has (including of course, the cards picked up from generous previous contracts and other decisions). The key question: what will the unions do to show that they can remain relevant, and be part of the solution, not part of the problem?

And even if the deficit can be reined back some, PSERS remains the issue.

There was an interesting chart that documented the Employer Contribution Rate from 1988 to now. The rate started out at 19%, declined for 13 or 14 years to 1% (thanks to a booming stock market), at which point the benefit multiplier was increased to 2.5, COLA rules changed and bubbles burst, whereupon the ECR started up again, to next year’s 8.65% and then 33.37% by 2015/16 and for the next decade, even after last year’s Harrisburg “fix”. Employee contributions have been consistently 7.5%.

So, how to fix this (and the related SERS for state employees)? Any solution will likely have to be approved by taxpayers. If the problem is dumped in the local lap, the increases are fundamentally unaffordable without a referendum: be it for, say, 10% property tax increases or an equivalent EIT. Even if Harrisburg rose to the occasion, that might also involve a courageous appeal to voters: for a change in the Constitution (“Any unilateral substantial change in public employee pension benefits that constitutes a “net detriment” to the employees is a constitutionally impermissable impairment of the employment contract”), or for issuing a Pension Bond to deal with the unfunded liability.

Now there’s something to write to Dinniman and Kampf about!

TESD School Board Meeting . . . Senate & House Hearings re School Budgets Continue

March 23, 2011
11 Comments

Monday’s Public Hearing on the land development authority and decision for final authority to remain with the Planning Commission took up much of the conversation yesterday on Community Matters. However, there was also a T/E School Board meeting on Monday night. Ray Clarke attended the meeting and sent along his comments which are posted below. As always, I am grateful for Ray and his coverage of school board related issues. At the upcoming Finance Committee on Monday, March 28, we will look for serious budget talk from school board members re expenses, programming and out-sourcing options.

March T/E Board Talk – video TESD has a new T/E Board Talk video available online. In the 9 min. video, school board member Dr. Pete Motel provides an overview of the T/E School District’s long-range facilities plan from the Facilities Committee meeting of February 14. The Facilities Committee meetings are not generally telecast so I highly recommend that you take the time to watch the very informative video clip from the meeting. Click here to watch the podcast.

Monday’s School Board meeting was most notable for the legislative update from Dr. Rich Brake:

  1. Senate and House Committee Budget hearings will continue through next week (the 31st, I think). The School District has a form letter on its website that you can modify and send to your representatives. (Click here for the sample letter.) Community Matters readers will likely want to add their own flavor to the letter.
  2. Our own Senator Dinniman and Senator Jeffrey Piccola are working with their Senate Education Committee to come up with relief from the infamous state mandates (to which the form letter, above, refers). Apparently there will be a press release on Tuesday. (Update: To add to Ray’s comments here, there was a State Education Committee meeting yesterday and I will have separate remarks on that topic later today.)
  3. The Senate has a version of the furloughs-allowed-to-solve deficits bill (SB 612, I think). There will be (Education Committee?) hearings on this in early April.

In response to my question about a reaction to the PSEA statement encouraging local discussions about salary freezes and other cost saving measures, the Board stated that they “are in continual discussions with the union”. If the direction from the union leadership can be translated into more than a one year expense deferral (present value at today’s zero interest rates = zero), it has the potential for a significant budget impact, so hopefully there will be something to report at next week’s workshop.

Perplexingly, Kevin Buraks reported that the Policy Committee decided to retain two consultants to tell them how to take advantage of opportunities to sell advertising rights (say, at Teamer).

The County Intermediate Unit gave a rather too slick presentation about its budget for next year, and the Board asked some good questions. Whether those can translate to any cost avoidance is maybe doubtful.

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

March 15, 2011
42 Comments

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.

Our State Senator Andy Dinniman Votes in Favor of Pennsylvania’s School Voucher Bill, Awaiting Response from State Rep Warren Kampf

March 3, 2011
Comments

We now know that State Sen. Andy Dinniman (D-Chester) supports the school voucher bill. As a member of the Senate Education Committee, this week Sen. Dinniman cast his vote in favor of the proposed legislation. I have been contacted concerning State Rep Warren Kampf’s opinion of the school voucher program and sent the following email this morning asking for a statement. I look forward to Rep. Kampf’s response and will post it when received.

Dear Rep. Kampf,

You recently introduced a bill that would reduce costs for school districts by exempting them from prevailing wage requirements for public works contracts. Your proposed ‘School Construction Cost Reduction Act’ indicates an understanding of the economic issues facing many of the state’s school districts. As Pennsylvania’s school districts struggle to balance their budgets, legislation that supports schools and taxpayers is appreciated.

There has been much discussion about the proposed school voucher bill S.B.1. which would help the state’s poorest children from the lowest-performing schools by providing options of attending public, private or parochial school. This week the Senate Education Committee voted 8-2 in favor of the bill and the proposed legislation will move forward in the process.

It is important for constituents to know where our elected officials stand on all important issues, including the school voucher program. State Senator Andy Dinniman (D-Chester) serves on the Senate Education Committee and voted in favor of the proposed school voucher legislation. As our State Representative, could you please offer your thoughts on the proposed ‘opportunity scholarship’ legislation? In your response, please address specific issues including the plan’s estimated price tag of $860 million, the constitutionality of the proposed legislation and the issue of funding parochial schools with taxpayer money.

Thank you and I look forward to your response.

King regards,

Pattye Benson
Community Matters
www.pattyebenson.org

Red-Hot State Voucher Program Clears Initial Hurdle

March 2, 2011
31 Comments

Teacher unions and school board members must be lining up across the state this morning in opposition to the latest Senate Education Committee vote.

Calling the proposed school voucher bill, an ‘opportunity scholarship’, the committee voted 8-2 yesterday in favor of the proposed legislation. The bill intended to help the state’s poorest children from the lowest-performing schools by providing options of attending other public, private or parochial schools, did not pass the committee without debate. The troubling issues that many of us have discussed, including constitutionality, religious freedom and the cost to public schools were sticking points for two members of the committee.

The Senate Education Committee is composed of six Republicans and four Democrats. Co-sponsoring the proposed legislation is Democratic Sen. Anthony Williams and Senate Education Committee Chair Jeffrey Piccola (R-Dauphin). All six Republicans supported the bill, as did two Democrats, Williams and Sen. Andy Dinniman. If you recall Dinniman had some suggested amendments to the bill, including testing and accountability from the non-public schools. The opposing school voucher bill members of the committee were Democrats Jim Ferlo and Daylin Leach.

Leach debated the proposed legislation on the grounds that the bill is not constitutional. Ferlo and Leach are concerned that the voucher system could erode public schools whereas the others feel that the legislation actually offers a lifeline to those children trapped in the low-performing schools. The opposing sides present two distinctly different ways of looking at the same situation. Piccola suggests that Leach’s argument that the school voucher legislation is unconstitutional is an erroneous interpretation of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The chair of the Senate Education Committee also dismissed the argument that the bill is in conflict with the state constitution in regards to support of religious schools with public money.

With all the questions swirling around this legislation, why did the Senate Education Committee seemingly just push it along through the system? Usually, I would be complaining about the slowness of government process, but it is amazing the way this school voucher bill is bulldozing its way through Harrisburg.

Aside from the many questions, concerns and debates swirling around this voucher bill, why don’t we hear much about the cost of this ‘opportunity scholarship’? Gov. Corbett swept into the Governor’s office under the umbrella of austerity and budget constraints, so can someone please explain to me how the estimated $860 million in taxpayer costs by the end of the third-year phase of the voucher program, meets that mission? And the $860 million does not take in to consideration the dollars the bill will siphon from the public schools.

Help me understand . . . what am I missing?

School Voucher Discussion Continues in Harrisburg, Sen. Dinniman Offers Possible Solutions to SB1 Issues

February 17, 2011
27 Comments

Yesterday in Harrisburg, the Senate Education Committee held a hearing to discuss the Opportunity Scholarship and Education Improvement Tax Credit Act (SB1), the proposed school voucher legislation. We understand that in the first year, SB1 would provide approximately $9,000 in voucher dollars to low-income students enrolled in the 144 worst performing schools in the state. The second year of the proposed legislation would provide school voucher dollars to all low-income students who live within the boundaries of those 144 schools. If I understand correctly, the average cost to educate a student in Pennsylvania is more than $16,000 and a school voucher student would bring in $9,000. The school district would retain the difference, approximately $7,000. In the end, more money per student would remain in the school.

The Senate hearing included some proposed changes to SB1, specifically how the school voucher program would work in the third year. As currently written the proposed legislation would expand the statewide school voucher program to include all students in the third year. Although a school choice supporter, Sen. Andy Dinniman presented a pair of amendments to address some of the concerns of the proposed school voucher legislation. One of his SB1 amendments addresses the cost of the proposed school voucher program (specifically in the third year) and funding issues. Dinniman’s other amendment responds to teacher union and school board concerns in regards to accountability issues of the proposed voucher program.

As a way to handle the costs of expanding the school voucher program to all students in the third year, Dinniman proposes using the state’s existing Educational Improvement Tax Credit (EITC) program. The current EITC program is funded by contributions made by businesses and is directed toward income-eligible students to help them to attend private or parochial schools. For their contributions, businesses receive a 70 percent tax credit (although Dinniman suggests lowering the tax credit to 65 percent).

This suggestion by Dinniman would reduce the high cost of extending the school voucher program statewide as the SB1 legislation currently suggests. There are projections that the implementation of the third year program in its current form, could range from $500M to $1B, depending on the number of students enrolled in the program. Since its implementation in 2001, the EITC program has benefited 244,000 students. Dinniman’s school voucher program would expand the EITC program, doubling the business contributions from $75M to $150M to help with school voucher funding.

Much discussion surrounding the SB1 legislation is concern over accountability in private and parochial schools. Dinniman’s suggestion to handle these concerns would be to mandate that students who leave the public school program must participate in the state’s standardized testing system. In theory I understand that the Senator is trying to address the educational standard concern that some may have over private schools but I am not sure how this proposed ‘standardized testing’ would work.

Use this as an example – Suppose a student decides to use the school voucher program, leaves the public school system and is enrolled in a private school. The private school has its own teaching methods and programming which may (or may not) align itself yearly to the curriculum of the state’s public school system. Perhaps, the private school teaches algebra in 7th grade and geometry in 8th grade whereas the public school reverses the order and teaches geometry in 7th grade and algebra in 8th grade. The seventh grade school voucher student is given the standardized math test, which includes geometry. However, this student is attending a private school that does not include geometry in the curriculum until 8th grade. As a result, the private school student (using the school voucher program) does poorly on the test. Obviously, this is a simplistic example of what could be a possible problem with mandating standardized testing in the private school arena.

Another possible problem but probably more easily addressed — the actual scheduling of the standardized testing. The school voucher student in the private school would have to ‘sit’ for the standardized testing and the scheduling of the testing may not be amenable to the private school schedule. It is my understanding that Sen. Dinniman’s two amendments are in the drafting stage, so I am confident that the accountability issues will be thoroughly vetted and a solution reached.

We know that the state’s teachers unions are generally opposed to the SB1 legislation as currently written. Michael Cross, VP of Pennsylvania State Education Association (PSEA) reports that the union is open to further discussion if the legislation is amended. They would look at each of the amendments and see if it adequately meets the needs of the students. Although unwilling to comment specifically on Dinniman’s proposed amendment changes, Cross did remark that he would not support an amendment that takes funding from any of the state’s current education subsidies. Remember, Dinniman’s proposal to address SB1 funding concerns, doubles the EITC contribution.

Chester County Commission Political Buzz

February 4, 2011
12 Comments

Gosh, things are buzzing at the Chester County Commission this week! There was the application deadline for the interim County Commissioner position vacated by Carol Aichele, who left for a job in Gov. Corbett’s administration. The deadline was Monday, January 30 at 12 noon – but at the close of business on Friday, there were zero applications received at the Common Pleas Court of Judges.

An article appeared in the Sunday edition of the Daily Local advertising the fact that there were no applications. Apparently, the notice did the trick and created a last-minute crush of interest! By the 12 noon deadline on Monday, there were 39 applications received for the vacancy! Upon review, six were removed from consideration because the applicants were Democrats and the appointment will go to a Republican. Although the judges hope to shorten the list, it looks like the interview process is going to be quite the undertaking!

Another item out of the County Commissioner’s Office. . . there is some unsettling news circulating about Republican Commissioner Terrance Farrell’s re-election campaign. This past November, he held a kick-off fundraiser, “A Pint of Chester County” for his campaign. The emailed invitation encouraged recipients to become sponsors with a suggested donation range of $250 – $2,500. When I received Farrell’s invitation, I found it curious that I was on his email list. Never having donated to Farrell and not knowing how they had my address, I emailed Farrell’s campaign but never received a response.

Today, I learned that my receiving Farrell’s email invitation was not an anomaly and some people are none too pleased, including State Sen. Andy Dinniman (D-Chester). Farrell’s fundraising email invitation was sent to government and personal email addresses, including Sen. Dinniman. Farrell emailed the fundraiser invitation to Sen. Dinniman’s district office.

Senator Dinniman’s staff sent Mr. Farrell’s campaign a letter stating that he was allowed to send political mail to a state senate office. Dinniman reported that his office received complaints by at least three other individuals, all Democrats complaining that Farrell had sent them the fundraising invitation to personal email accounts. Farrell’s response to accusations of misusing emails for his re-election campaign — he was just keeping his constituents informed. Whoops!

Things are really getting interesting for county races . . . from DA candidates to the Common Pleas Judge candidates and now the news about the County Commissioner candidates. It will be curious how the hyperbole plays out at the County Republican Convention on February 15.

Speaking of politics . . . so, you think you know where you stand, politically speaking? Think again. A friend sent me this short test and the results may surprise and give you food for thought. You will be asked just 10 questions, and it instantly tells you where you stand politically.

The results will show your position as a red dot on a “political map” so you will see exactly where you score. The most interesting thing about the quiz is that it beyond the Democrat, Republican, and Independent.

The Quiz has gotten a lot of praise . . . The Washington Post said it has “gained respect as a valid measure of a person’s political leanings.” The Fraser Institute said it’s a “fast, fun and accurate assessment of a person’s overall political views”. Suite University said it is the “most concise and accurate
political quiz out there.”

I took the test and was not surprised to score a ‘Centrist’ label for my efforts. According to the Quiz website, . . . “a Centrist prefer a ‘middle ground’ regarding government control of the economy and personal behavior. Depending on the issue, they sometimes favor government intervention and sometimes support individual freedom of choice. Centrists pride themselves on keeping an open mind, tend to oppose “political extremes,” and emphasize what they describe as “practical” solutions to problems”.

Take the Quiz — it’s fun and will not take you more than 5 min. It would be great if you would share your results! Here is the link for the Quiz:
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz

Deteriorating bridge, parking safety concerns, liability issues . . . Why spend taxpayer money on open space and not maintain?

December 19, 2010
12 Comments

Back on November 15, the Tredyffrin Township’s Board of Supervisors agenda included awarding the Swedesford Road Open Space bridge repair contract. (The lowest qualified bidder was Bill Anskis, Inc. in the amount of $84,655.50.) This bridge repair has been on the Township capital projects list for a long time and had finally found its way to the top. The Swedesford Road Open Space property is located directly across the road from my house, so I am acutely aware of its usage and its associated parking issues for anyone attempting to use this Township open space.

I spoke at the November 15 supervisors meeting to explain the Swedesford Road Open Space usage, particularly during spring and summer trout fishing season. Swedesford Road is a highly traveled road and I assumed that once the liability issues to the township were understood, this project would move forward. In fact, in the township’s five-year plan, improvements to the Swedesford Road Open Space project specifically state, “bridge and parking lot safety improvements”. Additionally, the necessary repairs needed for the Swedesford Road Open Space bridge and parking improvements is included in the implementation of the latest Township Comprehensive Plan. Rather than approving the Public Works project, the supervisors voted to pass it to the Parks Board for further discussion.

The Parks Board met last week and the Swedesford Road Open Space bridge project was on their agenda for discussion. It is my understanding that the Parks Board voted unanimously not to support the bridge repair and parking safety project. I simply do not understand. Either the members of the Parks Board did not visit the Swedesford Road site (and see the deteriorating bridge and existing parking liability issues) or they are choosing to follow the lead of some of the supervisors. But it does surprise me that members of the Parks Board would not support the needed repairs and maintenance of one of the parks they are appointed to protect. As an appointed member of the township’s HARB (Historical Architectural Review Board), I liken their decision to . . . me not supporting the historic buildings in the township. I guess I do not understand the Parks Board motivation.

If the township (1) supports open space through purchase of property and (2) advertises the use of the open space and parks, then (3) doesn’t the township have a responsibility to maintain the property so that it is accessible and safe for the residents to use?

Back in 2006, there was a firestorm of debate over the purchase of the Swedesford Road property (and its price tag). The purchase price for the 5.7 acres of open space was $825,000. However, a Chester County grant paid for more than half the cost. The Swedesford Road Open Space ordinance in 2006 stated the property was to be “utilized perpetually for park, recreational and natural-resources conservation purposes.” Many in the community thought that the price was too high for this property but that debate is long gone . . . the taxpayers own the property and it should be accessible for use.

It is also important to note that the Swedesford Road Open Space project is a capital expense and not included in the township’s operating budget. The project is funded through bond and grants money and would not affect the supervisor’s passing of the 2011 budget.

In reviewing the agenda for the upcoming Board of Supervisor meeting on Monday, the Swedesford Road Open Space bridge repair and parking improvements is listed. With the reinforcement of the Parks Board member’s unanimous vote not to move the repair project forward, it is doubtful that the supervisors will approve this Public Works project.

I do hope that the supervisors recognize that there is a liability issue for the township by choosing not to repair the bridge or improve the parking situation. Residents see the township’s sign ‘Swedesford Road Open Space’ and attempt to pull off the road on to the open space property. With no room to turnaround, drivers are often forced to back out on to Swedesford Road . . . a risky proposition!

If the supervisors are not going to repair the bridge and improve the parking, I suggest that the township remove signage and close the area of Swedesford Road Open Space to discourage visitors. However, before taking down the Swedesford Road Open Space sign and closing the area to public use, perhaps the township supervisors should notify Senator Andy Dinniman and Commissioner Carol Aichele. Chester County dollars through a grant were used to fund this open space purchase and their names appear on the sign!

________________________________________________________________

Additional notes:

Following the November 15 Board of Supervisors meeting, an article, ‘Tredyffrin has its own bridge to nowhere’ appeared in the Mainline Media News newspaper – here is a link.

For those that are unfamiliar, I have included some photos of the Swedesford Road Open Space property – the bridge and the parking area. In the last few weeks, there has been a traffic accident at the Swedesford Road Open Space where the guard rail has become dislodged.

Community Matters © 2024 Frontier Theme