Pattye Benson

Community Matters

TESD

School Board Votes Against Continuing EIT Discussion at this Time

October 26, 2010
52 Comments

The vote last night by the T/E School Board stunned me – they voted 7-2 against sending a notification letter to the Tredyffrin and Easttown Townships that the school district would consider a voter referendum on the EIT on the May ballot. Their vote last night was only to continue the process of discovery – there was no downside to the notification to the townships. The School Board would still have until the March 18, 2011 deadline to decide whether to take it to voter referendum in May. Kevin Mahoney and Anne Crowley believed that it was important to continue the public discussion and voted in favor of sending the notification to the townships; the other 7 members of the school board voted against.

I do not understand this school board decision. Faced with a $7 million deficit that needs to be funded, why would these seven board members take an option off the table prematurely? The school board may not have enough details now to make a decision about the voter referendum but the beauty of the vote last night was that they did not need to make a decision now – just buy themselves some more time by notifying the townships and continuing to work towards a March decision. After continuing to research their options, if the March 18, 2011 deadline came and the School Board was not comfortable with a voter referendum on the issue, they could decide then not to take if any further. However, by taking it ‘off the table’ last night, seven members of the School Board took away that option.

Why did the School Board go to the trouble of having a public meeting on EIT if this was going to be the outcome? Why not handle the decision democratically and let the public weigh in? Whether it is an increase in property taxes, imposing an EIT, cutting programs and/or staff . . . something is going to have to change and there will be a cost to the taxpayers and/or to the school district programming. Again, why remove one of the options unnecessarily without full discussion?

A reason to vote against continuing the process by some of the School Board members could be the thought that the EIT referendum would fail out the polls in May . . . but without a crystal ball, how could they know?

In my opinion, with the school district facing a $7 million deficit, keeping all options on the table as long as possible should be the goal of the school board, rather than second-guessing the future. Perhaps the 7 members of the School Board have some kind of funding solution in mind for the future . . . taking on the teacher union at the next contract negotations?

Ray Clark attended last night’s School Board meeting and provided the following notes:

At its meeting on Monday, the School Board voted 7-2 against sending to the Townships a letter of intent regarding the implementation of an EIT in 2011/12 and for setting up a Commission to study the issue between May and September 2011. Kevin Mahoney was in favor of sending the letter to allow continued discussion this year, while Anne Crowley wanted further information for another Board meeting before the November deadline for the letter.

The most common reasons advanced in favor of the delay were:
– An EIT could maybe be a good idea, but in the opinion of the Board, the voters would vote it down if presented with options and asked next year.
– There is not enough time (5 months (October 26 2010 to March 18 2011) to resolve the many unknowns (versus May to September 2011?).
– Because T/E will have to solve the $8 million gap problem by cutting education programs, drawing down the fund balance and/or going to a property tax referendum, there will be pressure on the unions to accept compensation reductions in the contract beginning 2012/13 and 2013/14.
– Harrisburg will eventually fund PSERS at no incremental cost to T/E.
– That an EIT will harm property values more than a property tax increase.

Betsy Fadem introduced a nice piece of analysis by calculating the percentage of residents (seniors, income earners, children, maybe pets [just kidding!]) who are currently paying an EIT, and implying that all the remaining residents would have to pay an EIT if it were introduced by T/E. Thankfully Kevin Mahoney was able to point out that there are five residents in his household, but only one is, and would be, paying an EIT!

Separately, but relatedly, Karen Cruickshank noted that the Education Committee had voted in favor of increasing teacher workload at CHS and of an effective reduction in CHS periods (combined expense-saving potential, assuming workforce reduction through attrition, approx $1.5 million per year).

I would definitely encourage residents to watch the replay of the meeting to assess their representatives’ perspectives.

TESD School Board Member Kevin Mahoney Says District Budget Could be 15% Over Budget in 2 Years if Pension Contribution Rates Don’t Change

September 1, 2010
42 Comments

Interesting article in Daily Local newspaper by Dan Kristie (see below). TESD School Board Member Kevin Mahoney says the school budget could be 15% over budget in 2 years if the pension contributions rates don’t change. According to Mahoney, the only way to deal with the increasing pensions costs is to pass a large real estate tax increase! Comments . . .

Retirement System’s Cost to Rise Dramatically Soon

By DAN KRISTIE, Staff Writer

This is a dramatic increase, considering the district’s 2010-11 budget was $203 million and 60 to 70 percent of the district’s expenses are dedicated to salaries and benefits — a percentage that, because of contractual obligations, is difficult to reduce or change.

Schools across the state are facing similar increases in their retirement system contributions, and their budgets are similarly constrained.

School officials in Chester County expect the state Legislature will — somehow — adjust the retirement system so the increases will be less dramatic. But even if reforms are implemented, the retirement system remains dramatically underfunded. Local officials doubt any state-level solution to the PSERS crisis will save their own school districts from all the retirement system-related pain.

Officials are reluctant to speculate about what will be on the chopping block once the increased retirement system contributions come into effect. The consensus, however, is that if the increases are anywhere near as large as projected, educational programs will be affected.

Kevin Mahoney, the chairman of the Tredyffrin/Easttown School Board finance committee, said that if required PSERS contribution rates do not change, his school district in two years will be 15 percent over budget.

This will be the case, Mahoney said, even if Tredyffrin/Easttown sees no other cost increases except for a small increase in the cost of benefits. Mahoney added that the district is required by law to pass a balanced budget.

“You can only do that by increasing class size or eliminating curriculum choice,” Mahoney said. The other way for districts like Tredyffrin/Easttown to deal with the increased PSERS rates would be to pass a large real estate tax increase.

Act 1 is the state law that limits how much school districts can raise property taxes. Act 1, however, allows districts to exceed the limit in order to cover mandated pension contributions. Act 1 also allows districts to hold referendums if they seek to raise taxes beyond the limit.

Local school officials said Act 1 taxpayer referendums are extremely unlikely to pass in Chester County, given the economic climate and the mood of the electorate here. And, officials said, school districts would be unlikely to try to use Act 1 exemptions to pass the PSERS increase off to taxpayers.

“[The West Chester Area School] board has made it pretty clear we’re not taking exceptions,” said Jim Davison, the chairman of that school board’s finance committee. He added that the electorate in West Chester Area would never go for a referendum.

“I have no confidence in a referendum passing in this district,” Davison said. Davison, like Mahoney, said he believes his district’s educational programs could be in jeopardy if the state doesn’t reform the retirement system. He said, however, that West Chester Area will try to make other types of cuts — to facilities budgets and energy use, for example — and hope for the best from the state-level retirement system reform effort.

“But I don’t know if we can make enough of those types of cuts so we don’t impact the classroom,” Davison said. “That’s the million-dollar question. We may end up impacting the classroom — increasing class size, getting rid of programs.”

Bill Fagan, the chairman of the Downingtown Area School District finance committee, used the metaphor of a series of concentric circles to describe how the retirement system crisis might affect his district. “When you look at the concentric circle with the children in the middle, the farther out you get from that circle, those are the types of programs … more likely to be cut,” Fagan said.

Fagan said he was unwilling to speculate about precisely what type of programs would fall on the outer circles. But, he said, he hoped Downingtown Area could deal with the PSERS crisis without negatively impacting the classroom.

The state legislature in July voted to reduce the 2010-11 retirement system employer contribution rate from 8.22 percent to 5.64 percent, meaning school districts will be required to contribute less than expected this year to the fund.

Local officials said that, in the absence of other action, this only delays the retirement system crisis. “The state has been unwilling to change the benefit program,” Mahoney said. “We keep seeing this ski slope curve in front of us, and whenever we get close to it the state has changed the discount rate, which just makes the curb steeper but farther away.”

Adoption of Tredyffrin Easttown School District’s 2010-11 Budget Set for Tomorrow Night

June 13, 2010
2 Comments

Tomorrow night, Monday, June 14, the school board will deliver the 2010-11 budget for final approval. The meeting is scheduled for 7:30 PM at Conestoga High School – here is the meeting agenda (word of warning – the agenda is 101 pages so suggest reviewing it online rather than printing!). I don’t think that there are any anticipated surprises to the budget. The school board has done a great job of keeping the public informed during this tedious budget process; I’m sure that there will be a collective sigh of relief from school board member after tomorrow night’s budget vote. I have a conflict with another board meeting tomorrow, but I hope that many residents will attend, and then share their thoughts.

Knowing that tomorrow was closing a chapter on the school district budget, I was interested in an Associated Press education article that was picked up in various newspapers this weekend. The article is about teacher tenure reform and how the Colorado legislature has made a rather bold statement against the teacher union in their state. Colorado is changing the way their teachers retain their jobs; using annual reviews and student performance statistics to make tenure decisions. In case you did not see the article, an excerpt is below.

In bold move, Colorado alters teacher tenure rules

By COLLEEN SLEVIN, Associated Press Writer Colleen Slevin

DENVER – Colorado is changing the rules for how teachers earn and keep the sweeping job protections known as tenure, long considered a political sacred cow around the country. Many education reform advocates consider tenure to be one of the biggest obstacles to improving America’s schools because it makes removing mediocre or even incompetent teachers difficult. Teacher unions, meanwhile, have steadfastly defended tenure for decades.

Colorado’s legislature changed tenure rules despite opposition from the state’s largest teacher’s union, a longtime ally of majority Democrats. Gov. Bill Ritter, also a Democrat, signed the bill into law last month. After the bill survived a filibuster attempt and passed a key House vote, Democratic Rep. Nancy Todd, a 25-year teacher who opposed the measure, broke into tears. “I don’t question your motives,” an emotional Todd said to the bill’s proponents. “But I do want you to hear my heart because my heart is speaking for over 40,000 teachers in the state of Colorado who have been given the message that it is all up to them.”

While other states have tried to modify tenure, Colorado’s law was the boldest education reform in recent memory, according to Kate Walsh, the president of the Washington-based National Council on Teacher Quality, which promotes changing the way teachers are recruited and retained, including holding tenured teachers accountable with annual reviews. The new law requires teachers to be evaluated annually, with at least half of their rating based on whether their students progressed during the school year. Beginning teachers will have to show they’ve boosted student achievement for three straight years to earn tenure.

Teachers could lose tenure if their students don’t show progress for two consecutive years. That won’t be a possibility until 2015, however, because lawmakers slowed down the process under political pressure from the teachers’ union. Teachers can appeal dismissal all the way to the state Supreme Court, and school districts have the burden of proving why they should be terminated.

Under the old system, teachers simply had to work for three years to gain tenure, the typical wait around the country.

Every state but Wisconsin has some form of tenure. The protections were intended to protect teachers from being fired because of their politics, religion or other arbitrary reasons. On average, school districts across the country dismiss 2.1 percent of teachers annually, generally for bad conduct rather than performance.

Colorado’s measure is a tribute to the tenacity of freshman Democratic state Sen. Michael Johnston, a former Teach for America teacher, principal and Obama education adviser. The 35-year-old Harvard- and Yale-trained lawyer was appointed to represent a largely minority Denver district that has seen an influx of more white residents because of redevelopment of the city’s former airport. He successfully fought changes to the bill that would have eased expectations for teachers with traditionally low performing students.

Although various states have responded to the lure of federal money by moving to tie teacher evaluations to student performance, no other state specifically changed its tenure laws as Colorado did.

Many teachers and some education experts argue that tenure reform is unnecessary. Margaret Bobb, an earth science teacher at Denver’s East High School, said bad teachers are often quietly coached out of their jobs by administrators, avoiding the protracted tenure dismissal process. She contends tenure is still needed to prevent good teachers from being dismissed for running afoul of administrators and to prevent experienced — and more expensive — teachers from being let go by cash-strapped districts.

“Education is not just you and your class. It’s not an individual activity. If you’re doing your best, it’s a system you’re a part of,” Bobb said.

Conestoga High School Grad Offers Personal Experience of Seniority in T/E School District

February 22, 2010
12 Comments

The following comment was received from a Conestoga High School graduate in response to ‘Last In, First Out’ discussion on teacher seniority. Some people would automatically assume that the more experienced teachers make the ‘better’ teachers. I don’t know if his/her personal experience is typical . . . but it certainly offers another viewpoint. Comments?

CHS Grad, on February 22, 2010 at 6:53 AM

Seniority is also what allowed my history teachers throughout my years at Conestoga to be completely inept teachers, and the reason why I didn’t learn one thing about history during my years at high school. Not sure if I should name names here, but specifically I had a history teacher in 11th grade that literally did not do anything but show film strips, to which no one ever paid attention. The class was a joke, and the teacher didn’t care at all. He would have us grade each other’s tests, and then we would line up and enter our own grades into his grade book. Of course everyone gave themselves passing grades. Maybe he was a great teacher when he was younger, he seemed like a nice guy and everything, but he was milking the system that had absolutely no accountability.

Another teacher I had at Valley Forge would literally fall asleep in the middle of class in the middle of his sentences. I don’t think he even really graded our tests because people would just write nonsense in their fill in the blank tests and most of the time it would be graded as correct.

In my view, seniority represents a division between generations, where older workers hold onto their positions with a death-grip as they begin to slow down, milking the system for all its worth. All the while, young, motivated teachers are left out on the sidelines. THAT is the foundation of unions in this country.

Tredyffrin Easttown School District . . . Continuing Discussion on 2010-11 Budget

January 6, 2010
19 Comments

The posting, Understanding the Tredyffrin Easttown School District Budget Process has generated interesting comments. Please take the time to read these thoughtful remarks from our local residents. In my review of the Tredyffrin Easttown School District (TESD) budget, I admit that I very surprised to learn that 75% of our school district budget is allocation to teacher and administration salaries.

In my attempt to understand the salary range of teachers, I found an interesting online site which details the salaries (2007-08) of the 195,000 Pennsylvania public school teachers and administrators. This link will now only allow you to review the range of TESD teacher and administration salaries but also allows a comparison of TESD salaries other school districts. It is particularly interesting to review the salaries of Radnor, Upper Merion and Great Valley school districts as compared to Tredyffrin-Easttown. There has been much discussion about the teacher unions, teacher salaries and benefits, pension plans, etc. I would like further research on the pension retirement programs.

Further Comments from Ray Clarke re Finance Committee Meeting

December 15, 2009
4 Comments

I have received further comments from Ray Clarke concerning the TESD Finance Committee Meeting last night which I’m glad to post. Again, thank you Ray for keeping us in the loop!

Further Comments from Ray Clarke re TESD Finance Committee Meeting:

  • Much discussion of appealing assessments. Maybe they miss the point that the reason property owners are getting their assessments lowered is that “they are fed up and can’t take it any more”? 53% increase in school tax rate in the last 10 years – way above inflation.
  • In the last month, the 2010/11 “gap” increased from <$8 million to the current $9.2 million. A teacher benefit switch (next point) was one reason. The other was a realization of the impact of the teachers moving across (more longevity) and down (more credits) the salary matrix. (I may have switched Across and Down)
  • Big drivers of the current year benefit cost increase: Bad claims experience elsewhere in the group (that was lauded as such a great deal last year), and teachers switching from cheaper to more expensive plans. Note: Cost to TESD for a family plan $15,000, of which the employee pays $960.
  • There seemed to be little detail on ideas to close this year’s deficit – Overall the financial reporting is well-intentioned, but it sure is difficult to follow. The big problem, from what a business would be used to, is that there is no cycling of the budget by month, so it’s really hard to know how they are doing by looking at the reports. What’s presented depends on how much they decide to “encumber” (set aside for the remainder of the year). I’m sure that is driven by municipal accounting rules, but they could make it easier for us to know what’s going on!
  • Teachers did offer an early retirement deal: pay off senior teachers with $30,000 so that the schools can hire cheaper newer teachers. The admin thinks that would be a saving – but not in Year 1, I’d think, and at what cost to the program? Didn’t work for Circuit City, did it?
  • Eliminating FLES saves $378,000/year.
  • Example of flawed thinking: Claimed saving of $84,000 from closing the print shop, but this is just salary etc. savings, not net of the replacement cost for contracted printing!
  • Let’s not under-estimate the fights there will be over some proposed cuts – 7th and 8th grade program changes, athletic programs, club sports, ….
  • Another note: the request for exceptions to Act 1 to get the additional 3.7% increase is just that – a request, and based on very specific costs. May not be approved by the state (but I can’t imagine it won’t be)
  • And here’s something: if the exceptions are approved or denied, by March 19th the district has to submit a referendum question seeking voter approval, for inclusion on the primary ballot on May 18. So, an opportunity for debate!

In general, if citizens are interested, there is an opportunity to weigh in – will anyone take the trouble? You can help!

There’s much more to be understood with the Bond issue question – possibly financial engineering can provide some short term help?

The next Finance Committee meeting has the bond issue on the agenda (no time to discuss last night …..) and is set for 1/4/2010 (same as BOS), just before a special TESD board meeting to discuss the budget.

___________________________________________________

Thanks again Ray for your comments. Mike (of Berwyn) you sent in a comment which I posted. As another person who attended last night’s meeting, what is your take on the meeting? Any further comments in regards to Ray’s assessment of last night?

Community Matters © 2025 Frontier Theme