Pattye Benson

Community Matters

Tredyffrin Easttown Education Association

T/E School Budget Discussion to Continue at Tonight’s Finance Committee Meeting . . . Salary Freeze & Demotion Considered as Possible Cost-Cutting Measure

April 11, 2011
Comments

The Finance Committee meeting will continue the budget discussion tonight, Monday, April 11 at 7:30 PM at Conestoga High School.

Following up on the Budget Workshop meeting held last month, the Finance Committee will continue to discuss various cost-cutting measures. Two new strategies introduced at the Budget Workshop will have further discussion tonight. The school board is suggesting a one-year salary freeze for the instructional and non-instructional union members. The school directors view the salary freeze as a form of shared sacrifice to show support for the district’s students. It is estimated that the pay waiver would net a cost savings to the school district of approximately $3 million.

The other new cost-saving suggestion that surfaced at the Budget Workshop was new to me . . . the option to demote or reduce full-time status of teachers for economic reasons. We learned from Dr. Waters that under Pennsylvania School Code that this action was permissible and apparently an option that more school districts are looking at as a strategy to maintain programming while providing a cost savings. I am looking forward to further discussion on this strategy at the Finance Committee. It is my understanding that the Superintendent is the one who ultimately makes the decision on where this demotion would take place in the school district.

I know that representatives from the local teachers union, Tredyffrin Easttown Education Association (TEEA) attend school board meetings. I would encourage and welcome public comment from TEEA at tonight’s meeting. Some of the cost-cutting strategies discussed at the Budget Workshop, and that will be further discussed at the Finance Committee, speak directly to the teachers union. I think that the time has come for the teachers union to be drawn into the discussion – I know that I would like to hear a public statement from a union representative.

Teacher Furloughs for Economic Reasons . . . Could it happen in Pennsylvania?

February 28, 2011
5 Comments

The recent discussion of Union-Chadds Ford School District’s fact-finding report and their teachers union vote not to accept plus the potential of a teacher’s strike in the Perkiomen Valley School District continues to challenge me to understand the process and the ‘what if’s’.

In my last post, I asked some questions to which several of you kindly responded. However, one question lingers. With many of the school districts (not necessarily T/E) in an economic crisis, what happens if a school district simply does not have the money to meet the demands of a teachers union?

I understand that once a teacher’s contract ends, the teachers continue to work to the ‘old’ contract. However, perhaps 3 years ago when the last contract was written, the school district’s economic outlook was far different. If you set aside an increase in teacher salaries and/or benefits, what if a school district has no fund balance and cannot meet the current teacher contract requirements. What happens? How do these school districts maintain a status quo of the old teacher’s contract? Historically, I do not think that the current economic climate coupled with the pension crisis has existed during the last couple of decades (if ever) in Pennsylvania. Without a precedent, legally what can be done — what is the solution?

Pennsylvania state law permits staff reduction in a school district under very specific conditions – if a program is eliminated or if a school consolidates or school district reorganization requires it. Currently, the state law does not permit teacher furloughs for economic necessity reasons.

State Senator Mike Folmer (R-Lebanon County) is looking to change the state law on teacher furlough and give school boards the ability to reduce staff for ‘economic reasons’. For obvious reasons, teacher unions strongly oppose this idea whereas a number of economically challenged school districts support Folmer’s idea. This issue is rising to the forefront as school districts could face the possibility of severe cutbacks from state funding next year. Pennsylvania is facing a $4 billion budget deficit next year.

To meet the demands of the enormous budget gap, school districts across the Commonwealth are no doubt going to see a steep drop in state aid. What alternatives currently exist for school districts to fund their deficit? Assuming a school district does not have a fund balance (or at a minimum, a diminishing fund balance) their options are limited. They can raise property taxes, cut programs, or do a little bit of both. However, we know that state law compels school districts to limit property tax increases to a cap set by the state or seek voter approval for higher tax increases. Folmer hopes his legislation will allow more flexibility for the school districts; they could avoid program cuts by teacher furloughs based on economic necessity.

It is interesting to look at the arguments on both sides of the issue. The teachers unions argue that furloughing teachers could affect the integrity of the education program, lead to larger class sizes and put disadvantaged students at greater risk. There is a feeling among the teacher unions that the students would be shortchanged with the reduction in staff.

The argument from the other side (the school boards) is that this tool created by Folmer’s legislation could help the school districts avoid eliminating programs as a means of cutting expenses. Some school districts in Pennsylvania (fortunately not T/E) are in extreme financial situations. Economic hardship has backed some school districts in to a corner; how they are going to resolve their financial issues. For those school districts, maybe Folmer’s legislation to furlough teachers for economic reason is their only lifeline.

Problems are inherent in this kind of legislation . . . . How do school districts resolve the challenge of determining which teachers or administrators to furlough? How would school districts avoid the pitfall of arbitrary or subjective decisions in the furlough process?

Continuing Tuition Voucher Discussion . . . What’s the next step for SB1?

February 6, 2011
10 Comments

Continuing the discussion of the tuition voucher program, a Community Matters asked for a list of the 144 low-performing schools cited in the proposed SB1 legislation. The plan would allow the parents of a needy child to take the state subsidy that would have been directed to their home school district and apply it to the public, private or parochial school of their choice. For the Harrisburg School District, for example, that amount would equal approx. $9,000/yr. Here is a link to the schools; listed in the order of performance, #1 is the lowest performing school.

The five lowest-performing schools in Pennsylvania are:

#1: Learning Academy North, Philadelphia City School District (0.00)
#2: University City High School, Philadelphia City School District (5.12)
#3: Washington Education Center, Ephrata Area School District ((7.69)
#4: West Philadelphia High School, Philadelphia City High School (9.64)
#5: Simon Gratz High School, Philadelphia City High School (10.54)

The number in parenthesis following the school represents the combined reading and math proficiency level in percentages. There is no other explanation but I read this to mean that Simon Gratz HS averages 10.54% of students performing at the required reading/math level. Assuming that the ‘0.00’ attributed to Learning Academy North is not a misprint, and if I understand the statistic correctly, it would seem as though no students at this school are effectively performing at the required reading/math level. Could this be possible? It would seem unbelievable . . . where is the accountability?

I decided to see if I could find any information about Learning Academy North, the lowest-performing school in Pennsylvania. It is a new school, only opened its doors 4 years ago. The district-run high school is small with only approximately 100 students and is a “nurturing alternative for expelled students” according to one article I read. Learning Academy North is located on N. Front St., in Philadelphia and is listed as one of the eight ‘Philadelphia Accelerated Schools’ (thought that an interesting category, given it’s english/math proficiency level). These specific schools offer full-time academic programs, for students, ages 16-21, who have earned fewer than 8 high school credits and who wish to return to school.

The school accommodates students who have been expelled from the District or are waiting for their expulsion hearing. Students at Learning Academy North can earn an official Student District diploma. In theory, this type of school looks like a good alternative for the older, returning students. However, based on the performance level, that does not appear to the case.

The Pennsylvania School Board Association (PSBA) is mounting a major anti-voucher campaign to oppose any tuition voucher plan and is asking public school officials to join the effort by contact their legislators. No doubt caving to public requests, the PSBA has now added the survey charts from Opinion Research to their website. The summary presents the findings of a survey of 805 Pennsylvania adults conducted Aug. 25 – Sept. 24, 2010. Ten questions were asked in the survey (click here for survey questions and responses).

The Berks-Mont newspaper (www.berksmontnews.com) reviewed the survey and offered the following observations on January 31:

  • About two out of three Pennsylvanians (67%) oppose giving public money to parents so they can send their children to a private school. Only a small minority (13.7%) of Pennsylvanians strongly favor taxpayer-funded tuition vouchers. Most older Pennsylvanians, aged 55 or older, oppose taxpayer-funded tuition vouchers and, in fact, 51% strongly oppose them. Over 70% of individuals surveyed under the age of 34, strongly or somewhat oppose tuition vouchers, more so than any other respondent age group.
  • For respondents declaring a political affiliation, a majority of both Democrats and Republicans indicate opposition to taxpayer-funded tuition vouchers. Democrats more so than Republicans, however, oppose taxpayer-funded tuition vouchers 69% to 58%, respectively. Independents also do not embrace tuition vouchers with 68% of them indicating that they either somewhat or strongly oppose them.
  • Regardless of zip code, opposition to tuition vouchers is universally held across all Pennsylvania regions. More than two-thirds of Pennsylvanians oppose tuition vouchers in all areas of the state except in the northeast (61% oppose tuition vouchers) and the southwest (64% oppose tuition vouchers).
  • Strong opposition to tuition vouchers is almost equally shared by whites and non-whites alike. More than two-thirds (69%) of non-white individuals indicated that they somewhat or strongly oppose taxpayer-funded tuition vouchers. This is slightly more than whites where 66% said the same. Only 10% of non-white respondents said they strongly favor taxpayer-funded tuition vouchers.
  • Two-thirds of Pennsylvanians (66%) oppose state law that requires school districts to pay the tuition of students attending privately operated charter and cyber charter schools. Like the issue of vouchers, Pennsylvanians hold very strong opinions on charter school tuition. Respondents holding opinions of strong opposition against charter tuition payment by school districts (44%) is almost four times greater than those strongly favoring tuition payments to charters by districts (11%).

The PSBA conducted a call-in program on Feb. 3 about taxpayer-funded tuition vouchers. Click here for the link to the 47 PowerPoint slides that were used during the call to PSBA members.

What is the next step for the tuition voucher plan . . . proposed SB1 legislation will be subject of a public hearing in the Senate Education Committee on Feb. 16. PSBA will present testimony at that meeting. Gov. Corbett’s budget proposal on March 8 will probably include the voucher plan. Following the budget address, the General Assembly will recess for a few weeks in order for the Appropriations Committees in the Senate and House to hold hearings and discuss various components of Corbett’s budget. The voucher bill will not move until mid to late spring.

Community Matters © 2025 Frontier Theme