Pattye Benson

Community Matters

TESD

TESD Facilities Committee proposes fees for VFES tennis court usage

June 15, 2013
9 Comments

The monthly TESD Facilities Committee meetings are held at a time that makes it difficult for many to attend – Friday at 2 PM, and the Friday, June 15 attendance proved the point. Ray Clarke attended the comittee meeting with 3 other residents and provided the his notes for Community Matters. In addition, I spoke with him for clarification, specifically in regards to the infamous tennis courts at Valley Forge Elementary School. If you recall, Zoning Hearing Board granted the variance last month so that the District could build the additional parking spots and leave the tennis courts intact.

I had assumed that once the tennis courts at Valley Forge Elementary School received their ‘stay of execution’, residents would continue to enjoy them free of charge. However, based on Ray’s explanation, it looks like the District views the courts as a revenue source. According to Ray’s notes, initially the Facilities Committee proposed two options for the tennis courts – an hourly rate for usage ($15-$25) or a flat annual fee of $28K to be paid by an association! It is unclear what ‘association’ the District had in mind — the neighbors next to VFES? Looks like tennis court neighbor Michelle Berger temporarily thwarted a PR nightmare for the Board with an agreement that the resident usage fee will not start until the fall.

June 14, Facilities Meeting Committee Notes … from Ray Clarke

Well, an audience of four at the Facilities Committee was treated to a detailed exposition of the process underlying the Infrastructure Plan. On one hand, we were told the plan took 332 hours of Daley and Jalboot time at the bargain rate of $12,200 (plus $8,000 for mechanical engineering), using annually updated CAD drawings of every building, inspections of every building, meetings with the Maintenance staff, using cost projections updated for 4% annual inflation, etc. Bbut on the other hand, we were told that we should pay no attention to the fact the resulting cost estimate is over $50 million, and in fact, that to even mention that number is inflammatory and “foolish”!

I wondered about the status of the Infrastructure report. I was told it was approved in “the May Board meeting”. I see that the minutes of the 5/13 School Board meeting includes the Facilities Committee report: “Also on the May 13, 2013 consent agenda is the infrastructure report, which is a ten year renewal of the plan”. However, there is no record in the published agenda or in the minutes of the actual item. The only related item in agenda or minutes is “Daley + Jalboot 2013 Projects/Fee Proposal/Infrastructure Implementation”. So, is it possible that the Plan was not only put on the Consent Agenda, but also added verbally at the meeting (and not recorded clearly in the minutes), so only those still awake at midnight would be aware of it?

I proposed that the Board and the community might benefit from a detailed discussion of a plan that sets the tone for the next decade’s capital spending – a discussion that might be needed once every 10 or maybe five years. Perhaps the items could be prioritized — essential to nice-to-have. Perhaps payback identified for those projects that would reduce costs. These ideas were met with derision — the Facilities Committee has managed things just fine for the last ten years, we spend an amount only equal to the auditors’ arithmetical calculation of depreciation, our debt service is constant at $6 million a year, most of the school kitchens are original (although equipment has been renewed), told I didn’t know the difference between capital and operating funds, etc., etc. It seems to me that the whole reason that there is such interest in the affairs of the District now is that in fact there really is a “new normal” where funds are not so readily available and trade-offs must be made. Prudent governance should recognize that.

The discussion of the VFES tennis courts provided further indication that this Board leadership just doesn’t get it. Two usage fee options were presented: a) fee of $15/hr. weekday, $25/hr. weekend, or b) an annual fee to an “association” of $28,000. This was to be implemented July 1st. The courts to be locked and monitored. Thank goodness, for a sensible and articulate local resident, Michelle Berger, who was persistent and managed to get through to the Committee, suggesting that this approach would be a total PR disaster and that it was better to involve the community to figure out a practical approach than an abrupt implementation of a bureaucratic plan. Tennis camps and any other organized groups will be charged right away – I think at the $30 per court hour that the township charges. Fees for residents will start in the fall.

So common sense thankfully prevailed here. But it’s really unfortunate that the Board has developed such a bunker mentality. I wish I could offer a solution. Perhaps the Board candidates will offer realistic commitments for change that we can hold them to.

Clarification of TE School Board receipt of outsourcing alternative strategy

June 13, 2013
8 Comments

This post is offered as clarification regarding the ‘outsourcing alternative’ strategy that Neal Colligan prepared for the TE School Board’s consideration and the receipt of the document . On June 4, Neal sent the following email to the school board at the District email address (schoolboard@tesd.net ) with the outsourcing alternative document attached. (I was copied on the email). As previously explained on Community Matters, the document represented the collaborative effort between community members, District aides and paraeducators and, health care experts. (You can find a copy of the document at the end of this post).

As you know, a group of community members, along with many of the Paraeducators working in the district have been working on an alternative to the outsourcing strategy discussed at the May 13, 2013 Board Meeting. Attached is the result of these efforts. The many citizens of our community who have supported this initiative ask that the Board please seriously consider what we propose. In essence, we urge you to comply with the letter of the Affordable Care Act and keep these several hundred jobs in the District. We believe that this can be accomplished in a fiscally responsible and budget positive manner as you will see.

To be clear, we do NOT represent this employee group. They, like us, are members of our community searching for solutions to a community issue. Unlike those of us who have volunteered to help, they will be directly impacted by your decisions on this matter. Their input was critical in considering the design of this strategy. Many of these District employees are living in fear of workplace retribution for being a part of this effort. As such, we will not attach their names to this conceptual plan.

Finally, it is a conceptual plan only. As we did not possess all of the data necessary, we used estimates where necessary. You will not be limited by this lack of information. As in any conceptual plan, there will be issues to work out in the implementation process if you choose this alternative. We believe that this concept can produce a viable alternative to your current strategy that is good for the District employees, taxpayers and the community at large. As engaged members of the community, we are prepared to help in any way we can as you search for a solution to this issue.

Please accept this in the spirit it is intended…as an attempt to help. Let me know when you receive as I can send this attachment in another format if necessary.

Neal Colligan

Rather than a response from the School Board to this email, a receipt from business manager Art McDonnell was sent to Neal. It was unclear whether the Board received the information. Because the outsourcing alternative document was to be publicly distributed on June 5, and because it was important that each Board member receive a copy in advance, I forwarded Neal’s email (with accompanying outsourcing strategy document) to each School Board’s personal email address (Neal was copied on the email) with the following message:

All –

I am re-sending Neal’s email and attached ‘Outsource Alternative’ on the outside possibility that you may not have received it.

Over the course of the last 3 weeks, we have met with many of the aides, paras and substitute teachers and I’m certain that as Board members, you share our interest in saving these District employees and their jobs. It is impossible to fully measure the value that this group of employees brings to the District’s children and their families daily. Understanding the current economic requirements of the school district, I hope that you will give Neal’s plan the complete review that it deserves. We both believe that the aides, paraeducators and substitute teachers are valuable assets to this community and their jobs need to be preserved, not outsourced.

Please let Neal or me know if there is anything we can do to help, as you review the various options.

Kind regards,

Pattye Benson

Following the re-sending of the email with the attached outsourcing alternative document, I received no notice of receipt from any Board member nor was there any response from the District. As a result, it remained unclear if individual Board members had received the information. A couple of days after sending the initial email, Neal did receive a personal email from Anne Crowley (no other Board member or myself were included on the email) stating that she would review the information he had sent regarding the alternative proposal. She went on to thank him for his “attendance, comments and thoughtful participation regarding school board issues.”

Other than the private email from Anne Crowley to Neal, I am unaware of no other school board or District communication to Neil in regards to the outsourcing alternative document – official or otherwise. Neal received no Board ‘thank you’ for his efforts as was stated at the Finance Committee meeting. And for the record, there was no response to my email (above) by any School Board member. I hope that this clarifies the matter and I apologize for any misunderstanding.

———————————————————————————————

Click here to read the outsourcing alternative strategy as provided by Neal Colligan.

———————————————————————————————

TE School District response to the Affordable Care Act — Reduce employee hours

June 7, 2013
57 Comments

Now that the dust begins to settle on yesterday’s announcement that the TE School District will not outsource jobs of aides, paraeducators and substitute teachers for the 2013/14 school year, residents and employees are again left with more questions than answers.

My initial reaction upon hearing the news that 260 District jobs were saved from outsourcing was enthusiastic; but now in hindsight, I admit it was probably premature. I was thrilled for this group of employees, believing that the School Board had finally recognized their value and commitment to the District’s children, in making the choice not to outsource.

However, after spending a few minutes reviewing Burak’s email to the employees in addition to phone calls and emails, the celebratory mood quickly changed. The statement reads that the “District will restructure the work hours” of the employee to comply with the Affordable Care Act and “does not result in new costs or penalties to the District”.

What we learn from Burak’s words is that the School Board’s way around the ACA compliance issue it to reduce employee hours. The ACA does not require the District to provide health insurance to those employees working less than 30 hours a week – so the District’s answer to the Federal law is simple… cut hours. TESD is the only school district in the area that does not provide health insurance for their employees – Great Valley, Radnor and Lower Merion school districts all offer healthcare coverage to all their employees.

Does the School Board want the community to feel good about what they are doing? Is this an acceptable solution? Where is the plan for the future … the vision … leadership?

Keeping healthcare coverage out of the hands of the least paid and oh, by the way, we are reducing your hours to comply with Federal law. This same Board gave the District administrators salary increases and bonuses and in less than 4 months is now cutting the hours of aides and paras. But don’t forget the Board also gave this group of employees a 1% raise. If you are an employee making $10/hr., with your 1% raise you will now make $10.10/hr. However, don’t get too excited District employee because we now must reduce your hours below 30 to avoid offering you health insurance.

Let’s review; the Board gives bonuses, raises and a Cadillac health plan to the highest paid District employees but provides no insurance coverage and cuts the hours of the least paid District employees. Seems hardly fair or equitable.

I had a phone call last night from a District aide who works 37 hours a week and cannot afford for her hours to drop below 30 hours. Her family’s health insurance is covered through her husband’s employer and they do not need coverage from the District. Her question to me — would she still be able to work the 37 hours a week in the District because she does not need the health insurance from the District. Of course, I could offer no definitive response. What would she have to do, sign an agreement with the District saying she wouldn’t take the health insurance if they offered it to her? This aide also wanted to know ‘when’ this matter would be resolved, what was the timeline for knowing if she would have 29 hours or 37 hours? Again, I don’t know and School Board President Buraks offered no details, except to enjoy the summer and he’d see them in the Fall.

I recall previous suggestions about reducing the hours below 30 hours so that the District would not have to offer health care coverage and comply with the Affordable Care Act. Dan Waters response was immediately negative to that suggestion, stating that the kids would suffer with the reduction in hours. Yet magically a month later, are we now to believe that the kids will no longer be in danger with a reduction in the hours of the aides and paras?

Beyond the personal effect on the employee in reduction of hours, how exactly does the District expect to make up the discrepancy and provide adequate coverage for the students? Is the plan to hire additional part-time employees to make up the missing hours? If so, at what cost?

Addressing the District aides, paras and substitute teachers in his email, Buraks states, “… we greatly value and appreciate the contributions that you make to our students and staff every day.” – To that, I’d say that you certainly have an odd way of showing it!

Bottom line … there are many unanswered questions and the employees and the residents deserve answers. Finance Committee meeting is Monday, June 10, 7 PM at Conestoga High School. I hope that the Board and the administration is prepared to respond to the questions.

White Ribbon Campaign no Longer Needed — TESD Not to Outsource!

June 6, 2013
63 Comments

The TE School Board held an executive meeting last night and have decided against outsourcing of aides, paraeducators and substitute teachers for the 2013-14 school year! This is great news for the District’s children and their families, the employee and the school district community!

Below is the email from the Kevin Buraks to the employees:

June 6, 2013

Dear T/E School District Aides, Para-educators and Paraprofessionals,
I write to you on behalf of the T/E School Board to inform you that the Board will not outsource our aides, para-educators and paraprofessionals in the 2013-14 school year. This action is in response to what we learned from you on our visits on May 21, 2013.
The District will restructure the work hours of the aides, para-educators and paraprofessionals in a manner that complies with the Affordable Care Act and does not result in new costs or penalties to the District. The 2013-14 approved Proposed Final Budget does not require adjustment and continues to reflect a 1% raise for all aides, para-educators and paraprofessionals, as well as associated PSERS benefit costs. In addition, the School Board is not required to take any action since the budget is unaffected by this authorization. As I shared with you on May 21st, we greatly value and appreciate the contributions that you make to our students and staff every day. I wish you the best for a successful closing of the school year, a fine summer and look forward to seeing you in the fall.
Sincerely,
Kevin Buraks
President
Tredyffrin/Easttown School Board

Say No to Outsourcing in TESD … An Outsourcing Alternative

June 6, 2013
4 Comments

The decision about outsourcing the aides, paraeducators and substitute teachers should not only be about money. It should be about doing what’s right — these employees are part of our community and deserve to be treated fairly. The outsourcing sales pitch may seem like the answer but it’s not a panacea. I hope that the Board and the administration will re-think the proposed outsourcing … tripping over dollars to pick-up pennies is not a solution.

Following the May 13th TE School Board meeting, the community was left with many unanswered questions related to the proposed outsourcing of the aides, paraeducators and substitute teachers. Requirements of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the effect that compliance will have on the District are at the core of the situation. The aides, paras and substitute teachers are the only group of TESD employees not currently receiving health care benefits. As of January 1, 2014, the ACA will require the District to offer these benefits to all employees working 30 hours or more.

Since the last School Board meeting, the aides, paras and substitute teachers, representing all 8 District schools, have met three times and I attended the meetings. The mission of the meetings was to disseminate information and discuss acceptable alternatives to outsourcing. The meetings were intended to provide a ‘safe’ forum where affected employees could express their concerns and ask questions, yet some did not attend, fearing workplace retribution for their participation.

At my request, Neal Colligan attended the meetings and helped us understand how the District could comply with the ACA without resorting to outsourcing. I want to be clear that neither Neal nor I represent these employees – we are simply residents seeking a solution to a community issue. Through the discussion with the paraeducators and other members of the community, an outsourcing alternative evolved. As part of the collaborative effort, Neal spoke with health care experts to better understand the requirements of the ACA and what compliance would mean for the District.

The parameters of the ACA requires that the school district offer health insurance to its employees that work 30 hours or more that is both affordable and of minimum value. Currently the only group of employees in the District not receiving health care benefits is the aides, paras and substitute teachers. The ‘affordable’ test means that the employee cannot be asked to pay more than 9.5% of their household salary for insurance. The insurance plan is of minimum value if “the plan’s share of the total allowed costs of benefits provided under the plan” is at least 60% of such costs.

Given the information available, Neal created a conceptual outsourcing alternative that would comply with the law and keep the jobs of 260 employees from outsourcing. (Click here for copy of the outsourcing alternative). The alternative was presented to the aides, paras and substitute teachers in attendance at this week’s meeting and copies were sent to the administration and school board members for their review (in advance of Monday’s Finance Committee meeting).

Neal provided the following explanation of the outsourcing alternative for today’s Community Matters post:

As the District has spent all of its time on a plan to outsource to avoid the Affordable Care Act (ACA); we based our plan on the idea of complying with the new Federal Law. With the help of community members and industry experts, we were able to price a health care insurance offering that is Affordable and meets the minimum standards required by the ACA. You will see in our analysis that complying with the Law (and offering a health care option) should be far less expensive to the district and its Taxpayers than paying the fee attached to outsourcing. We’ve also done some work on PSERS costs as it relates to this employee group and have devised a plan to neutralize those cost increases to the District.

Please know that this is a conceptual plan only. We did not have all of the information needed to develop “hard” numbers. The District, if it decides to investigate this option, would not be limited by estimates. Further, the cost of our insurance offering was also estimated. We believe this to be a conservative estimate as the District is a large insurance client and may be able to secure this type of plan at a more competitive cost. The new insurance plan offered (in our analysis) may be considered discriminatory as it is not of the caliber offered to the other District employee groups. Certainly it is no more discriminatory than the current situation where this employee group is not covered at all. We also believe the District is not in danger of violating the discriminatory parameters of the ACA as they do not meet the test of “fully insured employer” (they are partially self-insured…this may be too mush inside baseball for many).

We ask the District to consider this conceptual approach. We believe an alternative to outsourcing along these lines can and will produce a more cost-efficient and sustainable solution while keeping this employee group as District employees.

If you oppose outsourcing the jobs of the District’s aides, paraeducators and substitute teachers, please plan to attend these meetings:

  • Finance Committee Meeting: Monday, June 10 at 7 PM, Conestoga High School
  • School Board Meeting: Monday, June 17 at 7:30 PM, Conestoga High School

Against outsourcing in TE School District – Join the White Ribbon Campaign to show your support

June 4, 2013
12 Comments

white ribbon

The TE School District is currently exploring outsourcing the jobs of all aides, paraeducators and substitute teachers in our School District.

It saddens me that vulnerable, dedicated employees have become the school district pawns, at the mercy of the School Board and the administration. ‘To outsource or not to outsource’ and the future of approximately 250 District employees (approx. total of aides, paras and substitute teachers) will be discussed at the June 10 Finance Committee meeting and then voted upon by the School Board at their June 17 meeting.

Without the benefit of a collective bargaining organization, there is little that this group can do to fight back against the outsourcing of their jobs. Although many TE School District employees in this group are also Tredyffrin or Easttown residents, they have virtually no say in the decision-making process. This community values the aides, paraeducators and substitute teachers for their dedication and caring support of the District’s children. As employees of the TE School District, this group of people deserves better treatment from the administration and the Board.

A lack of transparency and openness from the administration and Board has continued during this outsourcing process, to both the residents of the District and to those most affected — the aides, paraeducators and substitute teachers. Misinformation or lack of information remained following the outsourcing presentation at the May 13 school board meeting. Although some of us learned that the District’s preferred outsourcing vendor, STS, withdrew their proposal, there is no information on the District website or press releases from either the School Board or administration indicating the change. I only learned the details myself by speaking directly with the president of STS, Jay Godwin.

Bringing awareness of the proposed outsourcing to all residents of the school district is paramount. Parents need to know that the best interests of the District’s children are the priority of the Board and administration. District employees need to know that the Board, administration and the community value them.

Support keeping the jobs of TE School District aides, paraeducators and substitute teachers in our District. If you oppose the District’s proposed outsourcing of this important group of employees, show your support with a white ribbon. Tie a white ribbon on your tree, mailbox or light post. If you are District employee, wear a white ribbon in support of the aides, paraeducators and paraprofessionals. If you are a student in the District, maybe you can wear a white arm band or white ribbon to indicate support for the District employees whose jobs are threatened.

We only have a week until the Finance Committee on June 10 — let’s show our support for the aides, paraeducators and paraprofessionals!

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Just spotted this ‘Say NO to Outsourcing in T/E ” in the Great Valley section of the District!-

Say NO to outsourcing in TESD

Harassment, intimidation and bullying have no place in our schools …

May 31, 2013
43 Comments

The troubling stories of intimidation by the TE School District administration continue, as does the School Board’s silence regarding this issue. After “As I See It: Tredyffrin Easttown School District … Intimidation to Silence” appeared in Main Line Suburban, I received additional phone calls and emails from former and current District employees, describing our schools as a workplace which seeks to control and silence. A former TE teacher wrote, “Employees have noted for years that they felt bullied and targeted when raising any questions or concerns regarding building and/or programming changes.” From a current District aide, “The negativity and lack of respect from the administration is always present.”

What is really going on behind the walls of our schools – the morale continues to plummet but other than bringing awareness to the problem, there is no indication that anything is changing or that anyone on the School Board is actually listening. Disappointingly, there has been no response to either of the two emails sent to School Board President Kevin Buraks in regards to this matter. Some may suggest that Buraks does not respond because he is in re-election campaign mode and does not want to risk his quotes appearing on Community Matters. If that is the case, I wonder what excuse is offered for not responding to the concerns of other School District residents. How about a press release suggesting that the School Board is addressing employee concerns and claims of intimidation? The employees need to know that their contributions are valued and that they have a right to a working environment free from harassment and intimidation.

By speaking out, employees feel that their jobs are threatened. Following the School Board meeting, the administration suggested to certain TENIG members that they had no business attending the meeting. These individuals did not speak at the meeting (although if TESD residents, they have that right); they merely attended the meeting. I find this level of control by intimidation from the administration extremely disturbing. All employees deserve a supportive working environment not a place where they fear losing their jobs for raising questions or concern.

With the level of discontent, negativity and lack of respect that many District employees are indicating, I simply do not understand why the School Board does not investigate and find answers. Why should employees fear retribution from the District administration for speaking out or … in the case of some TENIG workers, for just showing up a public meeting? When a District employee speaks as a citizen at a meeting, does the First Amendment not protect them? How is it possible that a school district is allowed to exercise control over an employee’s private speech.

There are examples of intimidation and low morale of the employees from all areas of the District — the kitchen staff, the custodians, the aides and the teachers. Large segments of the employee community feel disconnected from the District leadership; leaving them to question why the School Board seemingly does not care. How do the members of the School Board rationalize and not react to what District employees are saying? I will say it again, this is not some isolated, disgruntled employee looking for attention but rather the new reality of what it means to be a TE School District employee. Respect and support should be commonplace on the education ladders of TE schools, regardless of whom you are or whom you know.

There’s no magic wand to make this simmering problem within our schools disappear. Increasing awareness suggests that our award-winning TE School District needs a thorough internal examination and review to look at what is really going on inside our school walls.

——————————————————————————

Footnote: In a quick Google search, I found ‘School Perceptions’, an independent research company that collects data, conducts internal examinations, professional development, benchmark surveys, etc. and measures feedback from community, parents, students and staff in public and private schools. According to their website, their mission is to “help educational leaders gather, organize and use data to make strategic decisions” by measuring what matters. I understand the economics of the School District and I realize that School Perceptions, or a similar company, does not come without a price tag however … this situation requires action. One solution is an independent examination and review of the working environment of the District employees.

End of VFMS tennis court saga – Zoning Hearing Board approves variance

May 24, 2013
7 Comments

The tennis courts at Valley Forge Middle School received their reprieve at last night’s Zoning Hearing Board. After 4+ hours of listening to various appeals, finally at 11 PM, the TE School District presented its case for a variance that would permit the additional parking spaces and keep the tennis courts. The combined impervious coverage of the additional parking spaces and the tennis courts is slightly more than the township stormwater permits. The District’s application to the ZHB sought a variance for the additional impervious coverage.

The fate of the District’s tennis courts was contingent on the ZHB ruling. Had the ZHB denied the variance to the District, the VFES tennis courts would have been demolished. After testimony from the School District attorney and architect plus members of the community, including impassioned remarks from VFMS neighbor Don. Detweiler, the ZHB members rendered their decision in favor of the variance. With a 2-1 vote (chair Dan McLaughlin dissented), the tennis courts appear to have been saved. Previously the Facilities chair Pete Motel voiced concern that to save the tennis would cost the District $14K to the contractor not to demolish the tennis courts. The Board of Supervisors waived the ZHB filing fee of $2K to the District. With the approval of the ZHB variance, presumably the School Board will approve the ‘saving of the tennis courts’ and the District will move ahead with the summer parking lot expansion at VFMS.

The audience was told that the decisions of the Zoning Hearing Board are not precedential to other appeals, so … does that mean that others seeking relief from stormwater requirements will not be able to cite the tennis court decision? Just asking the question …

TE School District … Intimidation to silence

May 16, 2013
138 Comments

I am not writing today based on an isolated email from a disgruntled school district employee. I wish that were the case. Phone calls, text messages and emails have come to me from teachers, paraeducators, custodians, kitchen workers, support staff and aides all painting an eerily similar picture of the work environment inside our award-winning TE schools.

If you want to control someone, all you have to do is make him or her feel afraid. It appears that the TE School District is now an environment of intimidation with administrators calling for loyalty, demanding public silence and leaving employees fearing for their jobs.

From the outside, the school district appears the image of excellence by any standard – impressive test scores, high achieving students in all areas – academics, athletics and the arts, supportive parents and caring teachers and staff that believe in putting education and students first.

However, those working inside our schools describe an atmosphere far differently … a place of fear and intimidation … a place where our District employees, fearing retribution, do not feel like they have a voice. One poignant email read in part, “We have signs all over about anti-bullying, yet the staff gets bullied.” Another email contained these words, “If you speak out and they (administration) don’t like what you’re saying, and you’re not a ‘yes person,’ then you will literally … you could lose your place there. You could lose your job.” I just read a comment posted on Community Matters that says TENIG employees were rebuked by the Administration for attending Monday’s School Board meeting. If true, this level of harassment must stop. School Board meetings are public meetings and all employees are welcome to attend. There is a policy that only TESD residents may speak at Board meetings with the exception of TENIG and TEEA union presidents.

The TE School District is committed to a safe and civil education environment for all its students that is free from harassment, intimidation or bullying and the same right is extended to all District employees. TESD Policy, Regulation 4330 “Unlawful harassment by and of TESD employees” provides the procedure for an employee to report unlawful harassment to their immediate supervisor, or to the Superintendent of Schools, if the complaint involves that supervisor. But herein lies the problem – if the District employees are scared of the Administration, and fear retaliation and possible loss of their job, how are they supposed to speak out? And where do they take their message?

This discontent between administrators and staff that has led to low morale in the schools did not just begin this week. Although certainly exacerbated by the proposed outsourcing of aides, paraeducators and substitute teachers, there is an unsettling picture that is beginning to surface; a workplace shrouded by fear and intimidation.

The School Board Directors of Tredyffrin Easttown School District need to lead. The taxpayers of this community pay the administrator salaries of the School District and we elected you as the overseers. Now the community is respectfully asking you stop deferring all your decisions to the Administration, and to simply … govern.

Outsourcing analysis by TE School District does not stand up to public scrutiny – decision ‘on hold’

May 14, 2013
109 Comments

Taxpayers, teachers, PTO presidents, paraprofessionals, parents, substitute teachers, TENIG members and students brought their collective voices to the School Board meeting last night, and were heard, at least temporarily.

Standing three people deep and overflowing into the lobby, all attended the meeting for the singular purpose to oppose outsourcing of paraprofessionals in the TE School District. For over three hours, one voice after another was echoing the same message to the School Board, “don’t outsource.” For the record, not one person spoke in favor of the District’s proposed outsourcing plan.

With Fox News and ABC Action News filming most of the proceedings,Board members, District business manager Art McDonnell, personnel manager Sue Tiede and Superintendent Dan Waters repeatedly claimed that many of us had misunderstood and that the third-party outsourcing to STS would actually help ‘save’ the jobs of District aides and paras. They wanted us to believe that STS would hire all the displaced TE employees and that our employees would be making more money working for STS.

According to McDonnell, the need for outsourcing is based on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the cost to provide healthcare for the aides, paraeducators and substitute teachers working 30 hours or more per week in TESD. These employees have never received healthcare coverage through the District. McDonnell claimed the annual cost to provide healthcare coverage to these currently uninsured District employees would be in excess of $2.3M and further citing a potential fine of $1.2M annually for noncompliance.

By the time the last person had spoken out about outsourcing, it was abundantly clear that the District and the School Board had many more questions than answers. McDonnell had predicated his evaluation of the healthcare coverage costs to the District on all 175 employees needing insurance. As was repeatedly pointed out, most of these employees have insurance through their spouses and do not need the coverage. The District’s cost to insure was based on all 175 employees working 30+ hours per week which had many in the audience asking why not reduce their hours (so the District would not be affected by the requirements of ACA).

Several residents spoke of personal experience with the Affordable Care Act and its requirements. One in particular, a CFO for a local corporation, offered that the District’s analysis was incomplete and inaccurate, and suggested the Board seek healthcare benefit expertise so as to make an informed decision. Example of inadequate District analysis — The Affordable Care Act does not stipulate that the healthcare coverage must be the same as offered to the teachers and administrators. Rather than plugging in the cost for a ‘basic’ healthcare coverage in their outsourcing analysis, the McDonnell used the cost of the Cadillac-type of healthcare coverage of the administrators.

The most striking comments of the evening were from those who had called the proposed outsourcing company, STS to learn about the company and their employment requirements. They were told that STS employees only need graduate from high school, or a GED will suffice. (Remember all the aides, paras and substitute teachers working in TE have 4-year degrees and many have Master degrees). When asked if any additional training was needed to serve as a school district paraprofessional, the response from the company HR — was one evening of their STS Academy training (!). One young woman in the audience spoke last night who works for TESD but is also a STS employee. She explained STS hiring procedure and the shocking revelation that STS hired her with no interview required.

Personnel director Sue Tiede repeatedly countered the low employment standard of STS that should District use this company, they would be required to meet the TESD requirements. We also learned that STS has no experience with this type of job outsourcing. Although McDonnell and Tiede offered that a couple of Lancaster County school districts employ STS, we learned quickly from audience members that these contracts were only recently signed … therefore leading to the speculation that our award-winning school district would serve as the company’s outsourcing guinea pig.

Facing many unanswered questions from audience members and an outsourcing analysis that did not stand up to public scrutiny, at 11:20 PM, the School Board voted unanimously to table the discussion of outsourcing for the night. By the Finance Committee meeting on June 10, the administration and the Board will seek a better understanding of the Affordable Care Act (and its requirements) plus work to answer the many questions and possible solutions offered by the public last night.

Community Matters © 2025 Frontier Theme