Tredyffrin Easttown School District Archives - Page 14 of 42

Tredyffrin Easttown School District

Superintendent Search underway in T/E School District – Residents invited to assist in finding replacement

May 30, 2014

The T/E school board has launched a search for a new superintendent and is seeking input from the public through an anonymous survey, “Stakeholder Survey – Superintendent Succession Planning”, available online through noon on Tuesday, June 10. Participants can weigh in on the qualifications and experiences that they think are most important in a superintendent as well as the strengths and needs in the district.

Public input is important throughout the superintendent process and this online survey allows stakeholders (District residents, parents, students and employees) to provide comments that are a valuable part of the search for the next superintendent. The answers should help guide the school board in the superintendent search to replace current TESD Superintendent Dr. Dan Waters, who will retire from the school district on June 30, 2015.

The following seven questions are on the survey, each with a pick list of responses.

Please select the stakeholder group(s) that best describes you.
Gender
Age Group
Please select the top 5 traits you believe are most important for Tredyffrin/Easttown School District’s new Superintendent.
Please select the top 5 strengths of the Tredyffrin/Easttown School District that the new Superintendent should be expected to maintain or enhance.
Please select the top 5 qualifications which you believe are most important for Tredyffrin/Easttown School District’s new Superintendent.
Please select the top 3 opportunities and challenges you believe our new Superintendent will face. Select at least 3 and no more than 3.

According to the District’s website, the survey results are to be made public. However, beyond making the survey public, will the results of the survey affect the Board’s selection process? The feedback reflects the unique needs of the community … how will the results be used by the Board.

Having the community, parents, school district employees and students involved in the superintendent search process provides support for the school board and will lead to a more favorable public perception and build trust. Sharing the survey results and the search progress in an open, transparent atmosphere makes us, the stakeholders, feel appreciated that we were consulted in the selection process and therefore, more inclined to getting the new superintendent off to a successful start. If the superintendent search is conducted behind closed doors, the new superintendent becomes promoted as the Board’s superintendent, not the community’s superintendent.

Some school board members believe that owing to their election by the community, that they have the right to make all decisions, start to finish, which effectively leaves the residents in the dark about the affairs of the school district. Taking that stance puts the District in a “no need to know” mode – which may lead the Board to conduct the superintendent search in secret or mostly behind closed doors. I have attended many school district committee and board meetings and often a prevailing attitude of “we know best” by some Board members and administrators exists.

Frequently attendance at T/E school district meetings is low unless there is an issue of personal concern to residents. Unfortunately, some Board members (certainly not all) equate minimal citizen participation at meetings as a stamp of approval for their governance; believing that the small group that regularly attends meetings (and is vocal) is not representative of the community. Regardless if five or five hundred people attend meetings, this community owns the schools and should be involved and kept fully informed regarding its investment.

Don’t get me wrong, I support the survey (and the inclusion of all stakeholders views in the process) but the survey results need to actually ‘count’ and not serve merely as window-dressing for the Board in the selection of the next superintendent. Most of the questions on the list are standard and the pick-list of responses to be expected. Some of the questions asked of survey participants appear to be designed to generate an intended result whereas one question ignores important issues facing the District. As an example, the #7 question completely overlooks significant concerns in the District, such as school safety concerns, drug and alcohol usage by students and low morale of employees — just some examples of important challenges facing the future superintendent.

Please take the time to fill out the District survey on the superintendent search. The final decision on the superintendent choice is ultimately up to the school board but the community’s involvement in the process is critical.

Standing on the sidelines changes nothing — TE School District aides and paras taking steps to unionize

May 13, 2014

30 Comments

It’s official, the aides and paraeducators of TE School District are taking the necessary steps to unionize. As announced by Supt. Dan Waters at last night’s Finance meeting, this group of employees is currently engaged in the process to join the collective bargaining unit TENIG (Tredyffrin Easttown Non-Instructional Group).

If you recall last spring, the District’s aides and paras came very close to having their jobs outsourced over the Federal government’s Affordable Care Act. Because of ACA compliance issues, it appeared that the District would be forced to either offer insurance or outsource the jobs of the aides and paras. At that time, the Board claimed that the District could not afford healthcare for these employees and could not risk the possible financial risks for ACA noncompliance. As a point of record, the TE School District is the only school district in the area that does not offer healthcare coverage for this group of employees.

Unfortunately, without the benefit of a collective bargaining organization there was little that the aides and paras could do to fight back against the proposed outsourcing of their jobs. In the end, the Federal government pushed off the required ACA compliance for another year. As a result, the School Board granted the District aides and paras a reprieve for the 2013/14 school year; their jobs and hours remaining intact for one more year.

As the current school year ends, what has changed for the District aides and paras during the last twelve months – are they any better off than they were a year ago? Based on their moving forward with plans to collective bargain, my guess is the answer to that question is ‘no’ – nothing has changed.

Without job security and healthcare benefits, the aides and paras are now seeking protection of their jobs and collective bargaining representation for their own jobs and for the jobs of those that will come after them. They seek fairness and consistency in employment policies and personnel decision, job security and protection of employee rights.

The community respects the passion and commitment of the aides and paraeducators to the parents and children of this District and values their contributions. It saddens me that this group of vulnerable, dedicated employees remains the school district pawns, at the mercy of the Board and the administration.

Supporting the need for an organized voice, the District aides and paras believe that all employees deserve fair and equal treatment. Standing on the sidelines changes nothing — I applaud the collective bargaining efforts of the aides and paras.; they deserve to be treated as full players not as an afterthought.

T/E Proposed Final Budget indicates 3.2% tax increase plus — the new Superintendent search gets underway

April 29, 2014

2 Comments

At the T/E School Board meeting last night, the Board approved the 2014-15 proposed final budget as follows – The Proposed Final Budget for the 2014-2015 school year is in the amount of $117,254,089 revenue, 2,671,891 fund balance transfers and $119,925,980 for appropriations on a tentative basis.

As presented, the ‘Budget Development Summary’ slide below indicates that the projected expenditures of $117,069,428 exceed the projected revenue of $113,962,589 = projected budget deficit of $3,106,839. With a tax increase of 3.2% (Act 1, 2.1% and exception, 1.1%) plus a net revenue increase of $211,370 and a net expenditure increase of $1,356,552, the revised budget has a remaining deficit of approximately $1.8 M. It is proposed that the $1.8 M will be satisfied with a fund balance contribution. The final budget is to be approved in June.

Once the revenue and expenditures projections for the 2013-14 school year are in, it will be interesting to see if the District ‘finds’ surplus dollars. If you recall, the District has found mega-millions in surplus the last two years in a row. Unfortunately, for taxpayers, each year the money has been ‘found’ until after the next year’s budget was passed (with a tax increase).

The budget surplus was $3.9 million for the 2011-12 school year and nearly $5 million for 2012-13 school year. It’s never been entirely clear what caused the budget surplus these last two years although I do recall that “lower than anticipated insurance costs” was used to explain a portion of the surplus. I have to believe that the Board would not approve a 3.2% increase for the taxpayers only to discover a budget surplus for the third year in a row. Not sure that there could be a valid explanation if that were to happen.

Another couple of notes from last night’s meeting. In the update from the Public Information committee meeting, Scott Dorsey announced that the process by which the public asks questions at School Board meetings and the Board responds has moved to the Policy Committee for further discussion. The next Policy Committee meeting is Friday May 9 at 12:45 PM at TEAO.

School Board President Kevin Buraks formally announced that Supt. Dan Waters will retire at the end of his current contract which ends June 30, 2015. Regardless of how people personally feel about Waters, his time remaining on the job is winding down – a little over a year left on his contract. As announced by Buraks, there is discussion underway about the process/search to hire his replacement. It appears that the Board will be utilizing the experiences of Jeanne Pocalyko, the new Personnel Direct, in conducting the search.

Ray Clarke sent the following note about last night’s meeting —

A note on the TESD Superintendent search from last night’s Board meeting. A Board Search Committee has been appointed. Members I think: Graham, Cruickshank, Bruce, Carlson but I could have missed someone over the general hubbub at the beginning of the meeting. There will be a survey to get public input sometime in May.

I wonder if they will ask meaningful questions: eg: From inside or outside the district? Re the above, definitely or preferably? Experience as a Superintendent? Rank a given set of possible selection criteria in order of importance? (Or, rate importance of the criteria, but all could be 10 out of 10). Criteria such as: experience in a high performing district; track record of improving educational results; track record of meeting budget; demonstrated public communication expertise; employee satisfaction results, and so on.

In her prior position at Dallastown Area School District (DASD, Pocalyko and the Superintendent search committee took a ‘community engagement’ approach and included administrators, teachers, parents, support staff, students, community and committee members in the effort. Although ultimately the final determination and selection of the new Superintendent remained the responsibility of the DASD Board, the decision process included the compilation of stakeholder feedback, interview results and comments from each interview round, reference checks and the school board’s consideration of district needs and input from the Committee.

Chesterbrook Shopping Center & Wayne Glen projects are on Tredyffrin’s Planning Commission meeting for Monday

April 27, 2014

3 Comments

There is an update with forward movement on the Chesterbrook Shopping Center redevelopment project! The developers of the shopping center, 500 Chesterbrook Boulevard LP, will appear in front of the Planning Commission on Monday, April 27, 7 PM to review the preliminary/final subdivision application for the site. The developers plan is to redevelop the existing 13-acre site, which contains approximately 122,000 sq. ft. of commercial space, into a mixed used development. Their plan contains approximately 31,000 sq. ft. of commercial space (utilizing a portion of the existing building) and 124 residential townhouses in the newly created Town Center District.

It has been nearly 4 years since Genuardi’s in the Chesterbrook Shopping Center closed. With the departure of the 40,000 square foot grocery store, the Center saw a significant drop in foot traffic and began a downward spiral as the empty storefronts continued.

The redevelopment of the Chesterbrook Shopping Center is very overdue – this project is going to be a win-win for the neighboring residents, the corporate employees working in Chesterbrook and other township residents, who like me, drive through the area regularly.

Also in front of the Planning Commissioners on Monday is the Wayne Glen development project. Unlike the widespread community support that developers have enjoyed with the Chesterbrook redevelopment plans, the Arcadia Land Company project ‘Wayne Glen’ at the northwest corner of the intersection of Swedesford and Old Eagle Roads, has seen its share of spirited debate.

The proposed Wayne Glen project is a mixed-use development with carriage homes and townhouses plus an office-building component. The issue for the residents close to the Richter Tract is how the developer will manage the stormwater situation as much of this area, including Glenhardie, is prone to regular flooding. The Wayne Glen project is located in the Trout Creek Overlay District and the Arcadia developers believe that their plan will utilize design techniques that will alleviate the erosion along the stream banks and flooding issues and improve the poor water quality.

On Monday, the Planning Commissioners will consider Arcadia’s conditional use application to construct 104 residential units in the R-1 Residential District and approximately 240,000 sq. ft. of non-residential building area in the Professional District.

The target audience for the residential construction in both the Wayne Glen and Chesterbrook projects is the age 55 and over market – the emptynesters and those people interested in downsizing from their large single family homes. However, with a combined increase of approximately 230 new residences between the two projects, the possibility does exist for additional school age children for the T/E School District. Typically, there is representation at these Planning Commission meetings by the School Board. However, the Planning Commission meeting on Monday conflicts with the regularly monthly meeting of the School Board.

As an aside, at the last Public Information Meeting this past week, Barb Jackson, an Easttown resident and T/E parent, asked about Dr. Waters contract and whether he would be retiring when his contract ended in June 2015. After Waters confirmed that he would retire, a follow-up question was asked regarding the search committee and process to find a replacement. Although not listed on the School Board meeting agenda for Monday, Board President Kevin Buraks told those of us at the meeting that the Board would give the specific details on the superintendent search at the upcoming school board meeting on Monday.

2014 Pennsylvania School District Rankings based on PSSA scores are in — Unionville Chadds Ford tops the list, Radnor moves up to third and T/E places fifth

April 13, 2014

11 Comments

Spring is PSSA time for public schools in Pennsylvania and the results for 2014 as reported in the Pittsburgh Business Times reveal exciting news for Unionville Chadds Ford School District (UCFSD). For those interested in this type of school district rankings, UCFSD now tops the state’s list, having ousted long-standing Upper St. Clair School District for the number one position based on 2014 PSSA results. The Upper St. Clair School District located in suburban Pittsburgh, had previously held the first place title for the last eight years but dropped to fourth in the rankings behind UCFSD, Mt. Lebanon (Allegheny County) and Radnor school districts for 2014.

The Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA) formula ranks the school districts based on three years of state standardized test scores, giving the most weight to the current year. The PSSA is a standards-based assessment of what a student should know and be able to do at varying levels in reading, writing, science and math. Reading and math is assessed in grades 3 through 8 and grade 11; writing is assessed in grades 5, 8 and 11 and science assessed in grades 4, 8 and 11. The rankings do not denote the overall quality and performance of the school district, only the PSSA scores.

Although the 2014 rankings show Upper St. Clair School District dropping to fourth place, another Allegheny County school district, Mt. Lebanon holds at second place. This is the fourth consecutive year that I have tracked the top 15 school districts and the highlighted line in the chart below indicates that T/E School District has moved from second in 2011, third in 2012, fourth in 2013 and to fifth place in the 2014 PSSA rankings. Last year we saw UCFSD drop from second in 2012 to third in 2013. However, UCFSD turned it around for 2014 and ended up first in the rankings. Looking at other Main Line school districts, Radnor had dropped from fourth to sixth in 2013 but they also changed direction and are now third in the state. Great Valley School District jumped a couple of spots this year and for 2014, their PSSA scores have them ranked at 11^th in the state.

Looking at the ‘Top 15’ school districts in Pennsylvania (based on PSSA results), Allegheny County continues as the number one county with six school districts represented followed by Chester County with three school districts (Unionville Chadds Ford, Great Valley and T/E), Delaware County with three school districts (Radnor, Wallingford Swarthmore and Rose Tree Media) and Montgomery County with one school district (Lower Merion).

A review of other area school districts indicates that Downingtown School District continues to improve; moving from 25^th ranking in 2012 to 24^th in 2013 and places at 22^nd in 2014. Phoenixville School District moved up four positions this year from 98 in 2013 to 94 in 2014.

A Pennsylvania school district that places in the top 15 or 20 out of 500 districts statewide based on the PSSA exams is an achievement for which students, parents, teachers and administrators can all be proud. Many view PSSA scores as a reliable predictor of future success. As a tool for student assessment, the PSSA exam helps measure and provides useful information of what students are learning. The PSSAs measure the performance of the entire class and provide of measurement of how an overall class is performing.

Pennsylvania allows parents to exempt their children from standardized tests for religious reasons. Some elected officials, including State Sen. Andy Dinniman, have been publicly wary of the way standardized tests are used. As Minority Chair of the Senate Education Committee, he offers ‘Eight Reasons Why We Oppose Keystone Graduation Exams’, believing that it is fundamentally wrong for three standardized tests to determine a student’s high school graduation.

Beyond bragging rights for a school district or as a sales tool for local real estate agents, how important are these test results? Do children (and teachers) need this level of pressure to ‘measure up’?

PA School District Rankings, Based on PSSA Results for 2011 – 2014 years

Tredyffrin Twp: Public Works Director Scott Cannon and Finance Director Tim Klarich are out and it’s only February!

February 25, 2014

20 Comments

Tredyffrin Board of Supervisors held a special board meeting on February 10 to terminate the employment of Public Works Director Scott Cannon. Stating several acts of misperformance, including two instances of improper disposal of materials on Township property in addition to procurement procedure violations, the supervisors voted unanimously to dismiss Cannon, without public discussion or comment.

Two weeks to the day after the Public Works Director’s termination, the ominous “discussion of personnel action items” appears on the Board of Supervisors agenda. We learned last night that the township’s Finance Director Tim Klarich is the next one out the door. Without explanation or discussion, the supervisors unanimously voted to accept the resignation of Klarich.

Although the public wasn’t privy to the details of Cannon’s termination, after only a couple of years in the job, I didn’t have a real sense of the pubic work director. On the other hand, Tim Klarich was Tredyffrin Township Finance Director for nearly 4 years. I found his analysis and preparation of the yearly township budget detailed and complete and his monthly financial updates to the board unfailingly thorough. Two township department heads gone in two weeks, there was an uneasiness with more questions than answers.

During the public comment period at the end of the meeting, I asked several questions and voice concern about Klarich’s abrupt departure from the township. When I received no response to my question as to when Klarich gave his resignation notice, I then asked ‘when’ his last day was. Board of Supervisor chair Mike Heaberg referred my questions to the solicitor Vince Donohue, who stated that yesterday (Monday) was his last day. Donohue then stated that because it was a personnel matter, there would be no further information. It was obvious to those in the audience that there was more behind the departure of Cannon and then two weeks later Klarich than was publicly provided. I

Falling under the jurisdiction of ‘legal and personnel matters’, it is highly unlikely that we will ever know the details of Cannon or Klarich recent departures from the township. Less than two months in to the New Year and two department heads are already gone — What’s that saying from Shakespeare’s Hamlet, “Something is rotten in Denmark”? Makes you wonder if there is more house cleaning ahead from the Board of Supervisors.

From the T/E School Board meeting also held last night came the unanimous vote to approve the teachers to approve the new 3-year contract. Ray Clarke attended the TESD meeting and provides the following personal comments:

Dr. Waters actually lead the presentation of the TEEA contract. A surprise since he rarely speaks. He addressed many of the questions raised on CM, but with only occasional reference to the data on the slides so it was hard to follow, even for an experienced ear.
One of the ways that the impact is minimized is that the caps on column movement are lower than numbers assumed in the budget (but wouldn’t we have budgeted “status quo”?), and that difference is taken as “budgetary savings”
Also helping the overall budget is that (my estimates) there has been a redistribution of ~50 staff from the top level to the bottom levels through retirements and replacements. Dr Waters provided total staff by level which will be handy for those wanting to sanity check the calculated impact. No further “breakage” going forward is assumed in the impact assessment.
It sounded as though the one-time bonus was not included in the baseline numbers.
Note that the increased teacher contribution to healthcare premiums averages $74,000 per year – $160 per teacher. We should not lose sight of the fact that taxpayers fund a very generous benefits package!
Outside the contract, I thought that the Committee Chairs gave richer summaries of their recent meetings than we have been used to. Perhaps that’s wishful thinking, but to be encouraged!

T/E School Board and Teachers sign tentative 3-year contract

February 22, 2014

4 Comments

The Tredyffrin Easttown Education Association (TEEA) and the T/E School Board have signed a tentative 3- year teachers’ contract for July 1, 2014 – June 30, 2017. After the teachers ratification, the School Board will take action at Monday’s school board meeting on the contract.

The contract protects the jobs of the District teachers and includes no furloughs or demotions clause through June 2017. The teachers will receive salary increases based on their step movement in the matrix. Not certain how this equates to percentage yearly increase or budget impact – need some help to understand.

2.013 Salary Progression

Through the end of the contract, the salary of Employees will be determined by placing them on the Salary Schedule as agreed to by Employer and Bargaining Agent as set forth herein.

Effective July 1, 2014, current Employees except those at maximum, will move one (1) vertical step on the Salary Schedule. Each employee is limited to one column movement per year subject to Section 2.025.

Effective July 1, 2015, current Employees except those at maximum will move one (1) vertical step on the Salary Schedule. Each employee is limited to one column movement per year subject to Section 2.025.

Effective July 1, 2016, current Employees except those at maximum will move one (1) vertical step on the Salary Schedule. Each employee is limited to one column movement per year subject to Section 2.025.

For all Employees hired prior to July 1, 1995, no Master’s Equivalency achieved after January 1, 1997, will be recognized as a Master’s Degree on the Salary Schedule.

Unless specifically mentioned in this Section, Section 2.013 does not apply to Health Room Nurses.

I was surprised to see a distance e-learning pilot program included in the contract. If you recall, TEEA previously filed a suit (and won) against the District over their implementation of distance learning. However, this contract includes a Distance E-Learning Pilot Program that will run the length of the contract, expiring on June 30, 2017. The e-learning opportunities will be offered to students by non-bargaining sources at the discretion of the District. The rapid growth of information technologies has influenced the way in which education is delivered and experienced – it is encouraging that the teachers’ contract includes an agreement for this pilot program in the District.

It looks like the teachers should be pleased with this 3-year contract!

T/E School District institutes 7-minute clock-in and clock-out rule for aides and paras & progressive discipline for violation

February 14, 2014

89 Comments

A bit of background —

On February 4, I received a copy of a memo dated January 31, 2014 from Sue Tiede, Director of TESD Personnel. Tiede’s letter went to ‘All Employees paid on an Hourly Basis’ (aides/paras) with the subject line, ‘Attendance & Punctuality’. Although I was told that ‘all aides and paras’ received the letter, that was not accurate – some of the aides and paras did not receive the letter until this week, 10+ days later. On Wednesday, February 12, aides and paras across the District were called individually into the principal offices of their respective schools to read Tiede’s letter. Before discussing the contents of Tiede’s letter, I have a problem with lack of District cohesive communication.

Memo to T/E aides and paras –

The focus of Tiede’s memo is the District’s establishment of a 7-minute period of clocking-in and clocking-out for hourly employees. These employees are only permitted to clock-in within a 7-minute period before their scheduled start time and within a 7-minute period after your scheduled end time. If scheduled to start work at 7AM, employees can only clock-in between 6:53AM – 7AM. If scheduled to end your workday at 3:30PM, employees can only clock-out between 3:30PM-3:37PM.

Having set the guidelines for the 7-minute clock-in and clock-out period in her memo, Tiede then details the progressive discipline measures for violation. A three level discipline approach, aides and paras receive a verbal warning and written notice for their first offense. An employee receiving a second violation receives a written warning in theur personnel file with threat of suspension or discharge if another violation occurs. If an employees is cited for a third violation of the 7-minute rule, they are subject to suspension without pay and possible termination.

I find the contents and tone of Tiede’s letter demeaning and threatening to the District hourly employees. District aides, paras and substitute teachers currently do not have District provided health coverage. TESD aides, paras and substitute teachers do not have the benefit of organized union protection as do other District employees — the teachers (TEEA) and members of TENIG.

What is driving this letter of intimidation from the District? In my opinion, the answer is Affordable Care Act and a way for the administration to make certain that hourly employees not go over the 30-hour limit that requires employee covered health coverage. By instituting this policy of progressive discipline, the District is not considering the safety of flight risk children and special needs children. Did the District explain this new 7-minute policy to the parents of these children? There will be situations occur where aides and paras are required to choose between remaining with a child or risking disciplinary action by not clocking-out within the 7-minute window. The use of time clocks for our District educators is nothing more than a different category of factory worker.

Was this 7-minute District policy and corresponding disciplinary action vetted by the School Board members? Was their discussion about the ramifications of this policy for special education students and their parents? Is this just another approach by the District to outsource the aides and paras – meaning, intimidate and threatened these employees to the point that they just leave.

Last spring, we saw the backlash from the public over the School Board’s attempt to outsource the aides and paras rather than comply with the Affordable Care Act — is this letter to District’s hourly workers, and its contents, a precursor to round two this spring? As previously mentioned on Community Matters, the School Board has repeatedly delayed any further public discussion of the ACA compliance issues — meeting after meeting. Perhaps part of the back-story to the Board’s continuing resistance to discuss the associated ACA compliance issues is related to Sue Tiede’s letter to the aides and paras.

I encourage you to read the letter below, draw your own conclusions and welcome your comments on Community Matters.. Please share the information with District parents, particularly those parents (and their children) who rely on the services of these targeted District employees. On the offside chance that School Board members are unaware of Sue Tiede’s letter to the aides and paras, I will email them a copy of this post.

TESD Calendar update — Students will have 179 school days & other updates

February 11, 2014

21 Comments

An article written by Yuge Xiao & Lavi Ben-Dorin in StogaNews online this morning, reports on the school board meeting and the updated school calendar, stating that“… students now have 179 school days. Staff will still have 191 days, with the last being on June 30. Originally, the Tredyffrin/Easttown School District (TESD) had scheduled 182 instructional days (the state requirement is 180). However, the district has chosen to not reschedule the two additional days.”

Thanks to Ray Clarke for attending TESD the meeting last night — Finance and Special School Board meeting — his notes are offered below:

Ray Clarke – Notes from February 10 Finance & Special School Board Meeting

1. Off-off-the-presses Affordable Care Act changes. The Board committed that the district will analyze the impact and report the results at the February 24th Board meeting. This is a hard commitment.

ACA Change: Companies with 100 workers or more are getting a different kind of one-year grace period. Instead of being required in 2015 to offer coverage to 95 percent of full-time workers, these bigger employers can avoid a fine by offering insurance to 70 percent of them next year

2. As suggested by some CM commenters, there are ways to save Spring Break and have the last day no later than June 20th: reducing instructional days from 182 to the state minimum of 180 and also counting three non-instructional days towards the 180. At the moment (before the the next storm on Thursday!) there are two days that remain to be used in this way and thus preserve Spring Break. The explanation wasn’t the clearest and I didn’t have a good angle on the screen, so the public should check the TESD web site for the approved calendar. Interesting here that the recently hired cafeteria manager was credited with bringing these ideas to the District from his previous public accounting (I think) experience.

3. The preliminary Budget was approved, with the authorization to file for Exceptions, which – if approved by the State – the Board has the discretion to use to whatever extent they deem necessary for the final Budget, which has to be passed by June 30th. Governor Corbett’s PA budget proposes reducing the increase in PSERS, which Art McDonnell stated would have the effect of reducing expenses by $600,000, if enacted exactly as-is. (I think that benefit is net of the state’s contribution, and presumably therefore the allowed exception would also be reduced by this amount – giving an allowed exception tax increase of ~0.6% rather than the current 1.1%). Many moving pieces here, and obviously important to make sure that the latest and best information is brought to bear on the final decision. Much reference to the March and April budget workshops, which hopefully can include fine-tuning across the board, incorporating things like salary “breakage”, for example.

4. Not discussed at the Board or Finance Committee, but there is an important Education Committee meeting tomorrow at 1:30pm. Topics include a review of the Special Education program (which we have told will be over-spending this year’s budget by $850,000 [over 5%], for over 1,000 students receiving special education services in the District]. Also on the Agenda, enrollment projections. At 12:30pm the Legislative Committee will be reviewing the Governor’s education budget and perhaps providing some insight on its prospects.

5. The district’s transportation staff drove the bus routes on Sunday to check that the roads were cleared sufficiently to allow the schools to open today – quite an effort and accomplishment, I think.

How will T/E School District make up snow days?

February 9, 2014

6 Comments

T/E School District made the decision late today that the kids will return to school tomorrow with a 2-hour delay opening. With many roads inaccessible to buses, the District asks that you have your child board at the closest bus stop located on an accessible road.

The revised Emergency Make-Up Day Schedule, as of 2/7/14:
Day 1: June 17, 2014
Day 2: June 18, 2014
Day 3: June 19, 2014
Day 4: June 20, 2014
Day 5: February 17, 2014
Day 6: April 14, 2014
Day 7: April 15, 2014
Day 8: April 16, 2014
Day 9: April 17, 2014

The District has scheduled eight make-up days so far, including President’s Day on Monday, February 17 which is now an instructional day. There are only two days remaining in Spring Break, Thursday, April 17 and Friday, April 18.

As the snow days keep adding up, some school districts are looking at ‘outside the box’ options and are getting creative when it comes to make up days. In Colonial School District in Delaware, the students will start school 5 min. early and stay 5 min. late starting tomorrow. By adding 10 min. to the instructional day, Colonial SD will make up two snow days by June. In Indiana, the Department of Education is discussing adding an hour on to the school day for six days to make up one day. If successful, they will add an hour to another six day period if additional make up days are required.

Some schools, in Ohio, Illinois and West Virginia, are allowing “e-learning days” to make up snow days. In Ohio, most school districts have already maxed out their five snow days. A state law passed in 2011 permits them to redefine three of the snow days as e-learning days. To meet state class-time requirements and avoid tacking on days into summer vacation, Ohio schools have the option to submit a lesson plan to the state outlining their e-learning day. (Of Ohio’s 615 school districts, 156 submitted plans for e-learning days).

How about attending school on Saturday? With no extra snow days in the calendar, Virginia Beach Public Schools decided to make up the instructional time lost over the course of three Saturdays in March. Certainly, there are pros and cons to each of these creative approaches although an extra 5-min. in the morning and extra 5-min. in the afternoon would appear to be low impact. The School Board will vote on the revised emergency make-up day schedule at Monday night’s TESD meeting.

← Older Posts

Newer Posts →

Pattye Benson

Community Matters