Tredyffrin Easttown School District Archives - Page 33 of 42

Tredyffrin Easttown School District

The Finance Committee meeting is Monday, February 14, 7:30 PM at the T/E Administration Office, West Valley Business Center, 940 West Valley Road, Suite 1700, Wayne. Click here for the meeting agenda and 2011-12 Budget Development Plan.

At the onset of this 2011-12 budget discussion, I want to give tremendous credit to the school board members who serve on the Finance Committee – Chair Kevin Mahoney, Debbie Bookstaber, Jim Bruce and Kevin Buraks. Their task is overwhelming and the 148-page 2011-12 budget document attests to their hard work, especially given the challenging economic situation of school districts. As a taxpayer, I am grateful and thank them for their diligence on our behalf.

Increased pension costs are the biggest hurdle in the coming years to school districts across the state. The challenge is how to balance the defined benefit plan of the teachers with the rising costs to maintain. How will school districts fund the pension plans, provide the same quality of education and not place the burden on the taxpayer . . . ?

Although I took time to review the budget documents provided for Monday’s meeting, I admit that my eyes glazed over on some of the details. If any of my assumptions are incorrect or if I have misinterpreted the information, here is hoping that someone will provide clarification.

As presented, the 2011-12 budget has projected revenue of $107M, which includes $1.2M revenue from Act 1 tax increase (1.4%) and $2.4M revenue from Act 1 exceptions (2.8%). Projected expenses are $112M, which leaves an imbalance of (-$5.3M). Without the $1.2M revenue from Act 1 tax increase and the $2.4M in revenue from Act 1 exceptions, the imbalance would be (-$8.9M) versus the (-$5.3M).

Although the 2011-12 budget gap is narrowed with the Act 1 tax increase and the Act 1 exception; there remains a deficit in the 2011-12 budget of (-$5.3M). If all strategies of Level 1 are instituted (as outlined on pg. 107 of the budget development plan), the deficit is reduced by $1M and the imbalance drops to (-$4.3). Under this plan, the remaining $4.3M of the budget deficit is to come from the district’s fund balance. The school district has a Moody’s AAA bond rating . . . is that rating jeopardized by using $4.3M in fund balance dollars for the 2011-12 budget? Understanding that the fund balance is taxpayers money; how much reserve is required to maintain the district’s bond rating?

All Level 1 strategies suggested under this budget development plan appear straightforward and practical ways to cut expenses. I did note two secretarial positions to be eliminated at a combined cost savings of $135K are included on the Level 1 list.

The more interesting and/or surprising strategy suggestions are included in Level 2 and Level 3. Level 3 requires attrition for implementation. It is interesting to note that the Level 2 strategies, should they all be implemented, would provide a cost savings to the district of $6.7M +. I would expect the dollar amount savings from Level 2 strategies would be substantially greater than $6.7M, probably closer to $10M, maybe more. Why? Because Level 2 includes the selling of TESD property including (1) the 16 acres on Jefferson Lane in Chesterbrook (earlier discussion on Community Matters questioned the feasibility of selling that property); (2) 738 First Ave, Berwyn; this is a 10 acre parcel where the ECS building sits. (As an aside, it was my understanding that the ESC building was contracted for demolition but it is still standing) and (3) 945 Conestoga Road, 0.33 acre of residential property next to Teamer Field.

In further review of Level 2 strategies, a few suggestions caught my attention; such as outsourcing of custodial services . . . could result in a savings of $950K. I believe that the custodians (along with the bus drivers, lunchroom staff and possibly some secretarial employees) are unionized which could make the change to outsourcing more difficult. However, with nearly a million dollar savings involved in custodial outsourcing, it could be worth further exploration.

On the Level 2 list, is a suggested $2M savings to the school district with the elimination of all non-mandated student transportation. The remaining transportation would be what is required by the state. Combining the outsourcing of custodial services and the elimination of the non-mandated bus transport, would provide almost $3M in savings.

Another Level 2 strategy that has an associated savings tag of $1.5M, (but a suggestion that probably is not practical and should be removed from consideration) is to require athletic and extra-curricular activities to become completely self-supporting. Families would be required to underwrite the cost of student participation or if unable financially, seek help from FLITE.

Contained in the Level 3 list are several staff reductions, many of which would affect the elementary grades. Here are those specific strategies and associated savings:

Eliminate Literacy Intervention Program $111,000
Eliminate Elementary Math Support Positions $350,000
Eliminate Four Elementary Reading Specialist Positions $300,000
Eliminate Elementary Strings Specialist Position $75,000
Eliminate Middle School Reading Specialists $300,000
Eliminate Middle School Math Support Positions $125,000
Reduce each High School Department by One Teacher $375,000
Eliminate Elementary Applied Tech Program $300,000

If my math is correct, the above listed eight cost-savings equate to approximately $2M. However, I have to believe that some of these staff reductions could directly influence the quality of TESD education. Remember, these are Level 3 strategies not Level 1. However, just the fact that they appear on any list, makes them a possibility.

The last Level 3 strategy listed is interesting and apparently was discussed at Friday’s Facilities Committee meeting – the redistricting of the elementary schools. According to district enrollment patterns predicted for the next 5 years, there is a need to consider redistricting. Devon Elementary is at 100% capacity and has become the largest elementary school. The savings is ‘to be determined’ because it is possible that redistricting could keep eliminate the need for additional space at Devon Elementary. However, this would impact those families living on the redistricted streets.

Ray Clarke attended the Facilities Committee meeting on Friday and offered the following notes from the meeting. It would seem that storage and maintenance facilities continues to be discussed but with no clear solution. I know that the ECS building was slated for demolition but would it be possible (at a far lesser cost) that the ECS building could be retrofitted as a storage facility – not for use by staff or students which could be affected by the building’s environmental issues – but for use as storage. It is obviously too simplistic a solution so there must be a reason that it is not possible.

Ray Clarke’s Notes from Facilities Committee meeting, 2/11/11

Some interesting and worthwhile discussions at the TESD Facilities Committee meeting on Friday, with many financial implications that are likely to be further explored on Monday’s Finance Committee. It’s good to report that the tone is very cost conscious – almost as if all the money that the Committee is spending is its own!

The first hour or more was consumed with a couple of items relating to use of the district sports facilities. (Perhaps these could/should have actually been on the published Agenda?). An adult soccer league would like to use Teamer Field; that would require a change in district policy and reversal of an understanding given to neighbors when the field was built. The revenue being discussed is material, and I believe that this warrants thorough consideration on Monday in the context of revenue strategies. A travel softball team has offered to redo the barely used and poor condition baseball field at the ESC site (one of four fields there) at their own expense. They have already done this for a field at Devon Elementary, and there seems to be no downside. The Committee was just about able to make a decision on this one! (Subject to a final check with the school athletics people). Larger issues that arose: a) the amounts the district charges seem to be low (another revenue strategy) and b) maybe as use gets more widespread the district will need to improve the scheduling system to ensure fairness and utilization.

The Committee revisited the issue of facilities for storage and maintenance, starting with the question: what do we actually need? The discussion was a little disjointed and difficult to follow, but it seems to boil down to: we need warm storage for snow clearing equipment (so it works on cold mornings!) that doesn’t involve sharing space with the carpentry shop, plus we need at the least to fix maintenance issues with the current building. The architect had come back with new plans for spending $2 million, taking about $0.75 million out of the first draft from a month ago. However, Dr Motel did not let the Committee even get to those plans. The majority of the Committee seems very conscious of the need to rigorously question all spending, although Betsy Fadem spoke for this project being part of the original plan for the non-educational facilities (but not the budget??). There is a good opportunity here to consider the full cost of in-house functions: for example, loading the carpentry shop with an incremental facilities cost changes the out-sourcing equation considerably. The administration is to come back at the next meeting with a full costing out of the options, from Do Nothing (but essential maintenance), through Add Temporary Space, Build New Facilities, to Restructure (some?) Operations. (It would be great if at least one of the Committee could have an on site review of the facilities and issues). Another topic relating to budget strategies at the Finance Committee.

Perhaps a good time to make the point that Bond Money is still Taxpayer Money. Bondholders are just not giving their money to the district because they like to see us have nice facilities! Although there may be no short run impact on the millage rate or the operating budget, and we can perhaps keep on borrowing, that money has to be repaid in the long run. The latest bond has to be spent on capital within a certain period, but there seems to be no problem with that! Again, relevant to Monday’s discussion.

Finally, interesting early data from just one week of kindergarten registration. Four of the five elementary schools are at an average of 75% of projected kindergarten enrollment, but Devon is already at 100% of the projection – and already enrolls over 100 students more than the average of the others (522 vs 420). The district as a whole has plenty of elementary capacity, but Devon is an exception. There is a facilities plan if an extra class is needed there next year, but the longer term may require other solutions.

Despite the Agenda, no discussion of the IT plan – the consultant had a sudden conflict.

Teachers’ Unions Set ‘Blocking School Vouchers’ as Priority

February 11, 2011

27 Comments

Two sides to every coin . . . supporters call school vouchers a right; a matter of choice. Opponents believe that the proposed voucher program is unconstitutional and will further erode the state’s lowest-performing schools.

The teacher union opposition to school vouchers became clearer this week when representatives from the two major unions brought their case to the state’s House Education Committee. Representatives from Pennsylvania State Education Association (PSEA) and American Federation of Teachers of Pennsylvania (AFT-PA) told the Education Committee that the teacher unions were focusing on two major priorities for 2011 – budgetary assistance and blocking the proposed school voucher legislation.

Pennsylvania is loosing federal stimulus money, which will create a shortfall of $1 billion in education funding. According to Gov. Corbett, the state is facing a $4 billion deficit in next year’s budget so education-spending cuts are expected. If you recall, Corbett and Democratic state senator Anthony Williams of Philadelphia (one of school voucher bill SB1 originators) supported school vouchers in their individual campaigns last year. At this point, we do not know how steep the cuts in education spending will be and no one may know for sure until Corbett unveils his preliminary budget, which is expected to be delivered sometime in March.

Although the school voucher bill will have several hearings in the state House during the next couple of months, Corbett’s budget address in March may see the proposed legislation moving forward. As the proposed SB1 now stands, it would direct over $50 million to the neediest families in the lowest-performing schools in the state. The estimated cost of the program is less than 1% of the current education subsidy.

Besides the school voucher program, the other major education issue that must be addressed by the state is the funding of the Public School Employee Retirement System (PSERS). PSERS as currently designed is not sustainable and threatens to break the budget of school districts across the state. Although the State Legislature recognized the significance of the PSERS funding problem last year, a long-term solution is needed.

Anticipating a major battle ahead over the proposed school voucher legislation, the PSEA union, which represents 190,000+ teachers in Pennsylvania, has announced an 11% increase in dues for its members.

Should T/E School District Join Others in Increasing Public Meeting Security?

February 7, 2011

13 Comments

In December, I think we all watched with disbelief the footage of Clay Duke, the disgruntled husband of a former school employee who opened fire on school board members in Panama City, Florida. Duke’s wife had been fired from her special ed teaching job in the Florida school district. The school board video showed Duke complaining about taxes and his wife’s firing before shooting at close range as the superintendent begged, “Please don’t.” There were several rounds exchanged with a school security officer, who wounded him, before he took his own life. Amazingly, no one else was injured during the shooting.

The Florida shooting was a wake-up call for many school districts around the country; many of which are considering increasing security at public meetings. Various security options considered include security guards, police presence, or requiring all meeting attendees to pass through some type metal detector or the use of a handheld detector. Protection at school board meetings is not just for the elected officials. As the discussion on our school district’s budget deficits increases, with discussion of property tax increases, programming cuts and possible staff reductions, there are more parents, teachers, staff, citizens, press, and sometimes students attending the meetings. As schools nationwide face this financial education crunch, heated moments and frustrated community members cannot be far behind.

Unlike Tredyffrin’s township meetings, which are held in the same building as the township police department, the T/E School Board meetings are held at the high school or the school district office. The Downingtown School District has made the decision to increase security at their school board meetings. Their decision to have security at regularly scheduled school board meetings was based on the Florida school board shooting as well as the recent shooting in Tucson, Arizona of Rep. Gabrielle Gifford. Starting this week, Downingtown School District has contracted with their police department for security at their meetings.

Although I am certain that T/E School District has an emergency management plan, I wonder if there is anything specific to public board meetings. You cannot predict or prepare for random acts of violence. However, circumstances that have happened nationwide in recent memory and given the time of which we live, unfortunately require this type of discussion.

Should school boards assess and appropriately upgrade awareness, along with security and preparedness measures, for their board meetings? Certainly. School districts need to be proactive (rather than reactive) in examining prevention, security and preparedness practices. We understand that no school district has a blank check for security or any other support service. School districts everywhere are under unprecedented financial crunches. But it is during a time when society is under intense economic pressure that violence and related security risks will likely increase.

I am curious, has T/E School District reviewed its public meeting security policies?

What About the Idea of Parents Receiving Report Cards on Their Performance?

February 1, 2011

9 Comments

There has been some interesting and thoughtful conversation about the proposed school voucher bill. Thank you to those that have weighed in with their opinions.

Although this ‘out-of-the-box’ proposed legislation is in Florida, I thought the concept was fascinating and wanted to share it. We grade students, schools and school districts but a new bill was filed that would ‘grade’ parents. State Rep. Kelli Stargel, R-Lakeland, the originator of HB 255 bill, thinks that elementary school teachers should evaluate parents. The bill would be applicable for parents of children in grades Pre-kindergarten through third grade.

The bill proposes that parents would get “satisfactory,” “needs improvement” or “unsatisfactory” ratings in four broad categories. The parents’ grades would appear alongside their kids’ grades on the report card. The parents would be judged on (1) their response to requests for meetings or communication; (2) their children’s completion of homework and preparation for tests, (3) their children’s absentee and tardy rates, and (4) their children’s physical preparation for school, including a good night’s sleep and appropriate meals.

The concept is interesting. I have a friend who is a 2^nd grade teacher in Philadelphia and she constantly complains about parents not showing up for conferences, and never bothering to call or re-schedule appointments. There are also ongoing problems with children showing up late for school. I can appreciate teacher’s frustrations; but I think that this bill has the potential to increase parent-teacher relations tension. In addition, would this not add to the teachers’ workloads if they had to keep track of parent progress as well as their students? Sounds like this parent-grading concept could create more work and not necessarily change anything.

Rep. Stargel believes that parental involvement is the key to children’s future educational success. She feels that by ‘grading’ the parents, it will force accountability and encourage responsibility for providing the needs of their children. However, should your child’s first-grade teacher be grading you in the first place?

In theory, there is student accountability, teacher accountability and administration accountability, so why not parent accountability? I applaud out-of-the-box thinking, but I am not sure about this idea . . . what do you think?

Is Pennsylvania Ready for a School Voucher Plan? Would you use school vouchers for your kids if you could?

January 30, 2011

44 Comments

Is Pennsylvania Ready for a School Voucher Plan? Would you use school vouchers for your kids if you could?

I wonder if the school voucher discussion is going to threaten the position of teacher unions, especially during contract negotiations. Gov. Tom Corbett is planning to make good on his campaign promise to move forward toward school vouchers for Pennsylvania parents. Contained in his inaugural address were the words, “Our education system must contend with other nations and so we must embrace innovation, competition, and choice in our education system.” Corbett issued a commitment to a voucher program, stating “Today’s Pennsylvania’s tradition of character and courage carries on in the single mother who works an extra job so she can send her children to a better school.”

However, pushing a school voucher program is not strictly a Republican initiative. Senators Anthony Williams, a Philadelphia Democrat and Republican Jeffrey Piccola from Daphin County have co-sponsored legislation that would give state money to poor students who want to transfer to a private school or another public school. In its current design, the Senate Bill 1 initially will only affect the 144 poorest-performing Pennsylvania schools. (101 of the schools are located in either Philadelphia or Delaware counties.) After two years, the program would expand to include all low-income students in the state. In the current budget year, the state is spending more than $9 billion on education, with more than $5.1 billion on basic education alone. This year the state is spending more than $14,000 per student in the public school system, though the amount per student fluctuates from district to district.

Sen. Williams believes that school choice is a civil rights issue. In a statement accompanying the introduction of the voucher bill, he states “Standing in the way of school choice for needy kids is like Gov. George Wallace standing in the doorway of a classroom to continue to the segregation of the ’60s. Why would we block access to great schools for children in need? … Let’s open the doors to freedom and opportunity.”

Not surprising, the powerful state teacher unions and their supporters are not fans of a school voucher plan, claiming that this type of legislation amounts to abandonment of public school education. Can one argue that this type of school voucher plan actually removes financial support from the public school that need more support rather than less? Teacher unions worry about accountability for private and religious schools, which are not held to the same governance standard as public schools. What happens if school choice passes and a student leaves a failing school and does not improve at a charter or private school? Whose fault is it then?

Former Gov. Tom Ridge failed with his school choice initiative in the 1990s. Is there significant change in the political climate in 2011 to support a voucher initiative? If Philadelphia is any indicator, there seems to be a movement among parents in big cities wanting better (and safer) schools for their children. Historically, there has been support for unions in the big cities, but parents are tired of waiting for the public schools to improve. To succeed, Corbett and his legislative supporters will need to balance the interests of urban parents who want better schools for their children with the suburban parents (like those in the T/E school district) who believe that public school may not need to change.

I support the right of all children to attend ‘safe’ schools but as we know from news reports, that is not always possible in Philadelphia. Is a school voucher plan the only option for parents to keep their children safe from violence, gangs, drugs in some of Philadelphia’s inner city schools? Unsafe public school must change, but how?

Does anyone share my uneasiness that a school voucher program may potentially violate Article III, the separation of church and state, contained in the state’s constitution? A voucher system cannot regulate where the money goes . . . I would think that using state tax money for religious schools would violate the constitution.

Would you use school vouchers for your kids if you could? I’m curious to hear what others think about a school voucher plan. Do you think that the school voucher discussion is going to affect the teacher contract negotiations, one way or the other?

TESD Looming Deficit Continues to Rule Decisions . . . Property Taxes to Increase + Middle School Latin & German to Disappear

January 25, 2011

52 Comments

Last night was T/E School Board’s monthly meeting. I attended the Board of Supervisors Meeting but I am pleased to provide Ray Clarke’s notes. In reading Ray’s notes, I understand that the school district has to make difficult decisions but it is disheartening to see that the district made the decision to phase out Latin in the middle school (as well as German).

I have mentioned it before but will repeat, our daughter had 12 years of Latin before going to college and then to medical school. Latin proved to be a significant help to Lyndsey with other languages, science courses undergraduate and later in medical school, In medical school, her background in Latin provided a ‘bonus’ in the way of help; a foundation that some of her fellow students lacked. As a first year resident, her background in Latin continues to assist her daily. Beyond a medical career, there is much to be gained in life lessons through the study of Latin. My fear is that if the school district phases Latin from Middle School, the interest and enrollment will continue to go down for Latin in the high school. This is unfortunate news.

An interesting aside, I received an email from someone outside of the school district who is thinking about relocating to our area. In researching the school district, he had found Community Matters and had several questions, including whether we had an Earned Income Tax and rate of property taxes. He also wanted to know the timeline for teacher contract negotiations . . . interesting.

Notes from Ray Clarke from the T/E School Board Meeting:

Two important votes at a very well-attended School Board meeting on Monday night. (Good result from all the district Communication activities). Again, 5 to 4 to pursue the request for Exceptions to enable a 4.2% property tax increase. Also, 7 to 2 (Bookstaber, Buraks) to phase out middle school Latin and German.

Public comment on the Exceptions broke down into the usual extremes. I was taken by a small business owner who brought the perspective of the commercial properties that pay 20% of the education bill in T/E. When a small business revenue is down, these inexorable tax increases have a very real impact on the bottom line. On the other side, a parent commented on the choices that everyone makes on whether to live in T/E, implying that those who don’t like the property taxes should move. If we think the district has a crisis now, what would be the state if all the seniors are forced out and replaced by school-aged families?

Generally all members of the School Board that did speak (all except Bruce, Motel) were against tax increases; the majority favored keeping options open while more data is gathered. This position will of course be untenable when we get to the final vote (Proposed Final: May 9th, then Final: June 13th). One data point I’m interested in: the February 14th banker report to the Finance Committee on the Fund Balance, borrowing rates and debt capacity – hope springs eternal! Kevin Mahoney made very thoughtful comments (well, I agree with them, anyway) that everyone would do well to watch on the replay.

Much positioning re the next TEEA contract; it will be interesting to see how the talk (eg: fix the contract, abolish the matrix) translates into action. Also notable in this regard: President Cruickshank implied that the pension increases are “going to Harrisburg” – well not really, they are part of the compensation of teachers here in T/E – which we need to take into account when negotiating the other parts.

It was helpful to have the discussion about the Latin and German programs. Students and parents had actually been voting with their course selections: enrollment has been on a downtrend to small levels. Rich Brake encouraged the administration to take all possible steps to encourage selection of these languages in the High School, as many do for Italian and Chinese now. I do like the idea that the current focus is to really push for fluency.

The Board went to great lengths to emphasize that it values all community comments, so let’s make sure that all perspectives are heard, and that those perspectives are based on actual data, not emotion!

Encouraging Real Estate News in Tredyffrin . . . Average Sales Prices Increased 8.4% in 2010 . . . Is the Quality of our School District a Factor?

January 15, 2011

5 Comments

In discussion of the T/E school district budget, several people referenced real estate sales, prior sale prices, assessment values, etc. and speculated on current real estate values. Discussion also centered on whether the quality of the school district affects the value of our real estate.

Nationally, we hear much negative real estate news so I was curious if there was any current real estate information available for Tredyffrin. I was particularly interested to know our community fared in the year-end 2010 statistics. Some good news to report . . . the township is doing better than just holding its own. In fact, Tredyffrin Township real estate appreciated in 2010, along with the rest of the Main Line.

Prudential Fox Roach realtor John Flanagan (www.mainlinejohn.com) provides information from TReND, the area’s Multiple Listing Service. In 2010, the average sales price in Tredyffrin increased 8.4%, or $35,054, from $412,490 in 2009 to $447,544 in 2010. The numbers used in this analysis included all types of properties — single-family homes, condos, twins and townhouses.

Interesting to note that the number of houses that went to settlement in Tredyffrin was the same in 2010 as 2009 . . . 374 transactions. The total sales volume increased in Tredyffrin in 2010 from approximately $154 Million to $167 Million. What about the average asking price on houses in Tredyffrin, any change? Yes, we find that sellers were asking approximately 7.2% less for their homes in 2010 than they did in 2009. The average asking price by sellers in 2009 was $507,803; where in 2010, the asking price was $470,806. Depending on when the seller purchased the house, the lower asking price may also be more realistic.

As the real estate problems deepened in the country through 2010, I would assume that it takes longer to sell houses in Tredyffrin (as is the case in many parts of the country). However, apparently that is not the case. In our township, there has been little change on that score; in 2009 the average days a house was on the market was 68 days and in 2010, the average time on the market was down by one day to 67 days.

Although the increase in sales prices in Tredyffrin Township for 2010 is a positive indicator, it may be too early to call it a trend. Following on the heels of housing depreciation during the 2006-2009 period, we hope that last year’s encouraging real estate news continues in 2011. So . . . do you think the quality of our school district is factor?

Should Teachers Be Consulted in School Budget Discussion?

January 14, 2011

22 Comments

The following editorial appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer on January 12. While many school districts across the State, including Tredyffrin-Easttown, are facing multi-million dollar budget deficits, this editorial explores the problem from a different angle; through the eyes of a teacher.

There has been much discussion on Community Matters about our school district budget problems. Question, do you think that we (the school board, administration, parents, and taxpayers) give adequate attention to the opinions of those most affected in this process . . . the teachers? Do you think the teacher’s voice is disregarded (or minimized) in budget discussions? Or, is it the teacher unions that are quieting the teacher voices?

If you did not see the editorial, please read it and weigh in on this discussion.

Our least-consulted experts on education
. . . Teachers are rarely given a say on school policy
By Christopher Paslay, a Philadelphia schoolteacher and the author of “The Village Proposal,” to be published this fall.

The Philadelphia School District is facing a projected $430 million budget deficit in the next fiscal year. As a result, Superintendent Arlene Ackerman has asked her administrators to prepare contingency plans for a massive budget cut. There will undoubtedly be a significant impact on students and staff in the city’s schools.

To soften this impact, administrators could ask teachers what support they need in classrooms and what they can do without. Teachers are ultimately held accountable for student learning, so it would make sense if they were consulted on the budget overhaul.

Unfortunately, though, when it comes to matters of budget and education policy, the opinions of schoolteachers aren’t given much credence. In the 21st century, public educators are paid to perform, not talk.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan exhibited this attitude last year in a speech to students at Columbia University. “In our new era of accountability,” Duncan said, “it is not enough for a teacher to say, ‘I taught it, but the students didn’t learn it.’ As [Stanford education professor] Linda Darling-Hammond has pointed out, that is akin to saying, ‘The operation was a success, but the patient died.’ ”

Like a surgeon?
The analogy comparing schoolteachers to surgeons is an interesting one. Surgeons are regarded as experts and treated as specialists. During surgery, they are provided with a complex system of support so they can focus on their area of expertise.

Teachers, on the other hand, are treated as jacks of all trades. They teach, but they also discipline, police, and parent. They write and grade lessons, but they also make phone calls and photocopies. They calculate report-card grades and compose syllabi, but they also chaperone dances, monitor hallways, and break up fights.

Teachers are basically responsible for everything that needs to be done to allow their students to learn. Their instruction is highly scrutinized and held to rigorous standards, but they are not treated as instructional specialists.

Imagine if a surgeon were expected to administer anesthesia, monitor vital signs, and give blood transfusions during a surgery. Imagine if he were required to make all the phone calls to patients to remind them not to eat for 12 hours before the operation. Imagine if he were responsible for maintaining order in the waiting area. How might this affect his performance?

But we regard surgeons as highly skilled, and we respect their opinions. We regard teachers, on the other hand, as educational grunts. Their insights about their own profession are often dismissed by education leaders as uninformed.

Data and power

Education is one of the few professions in America in which policies are written and decisions are made by governing bodies outside the field. Doctors, lawyers, and engineers all govern themselves. Their panels and boards of directors are made up of other doctors, lawyers, and engineers. The same holds true for counselors, carpenters, and electricians. Even professors and researchers are subject to peer review.

Not teachers, though. Politicians make the decisions when it comes to education in K-12 schools. So do researchers, think tanks, and lobbyists. Does it matter that most of these people have little to no experience teaching in a K-12 classroom? No, because they have the data and the power.

And what do the teachers have to offer? Just experience. Just thousands of hours of trial and error, of dealing with children, parents, curriculum, and content. That’s all the teachers bring to the table. Unfortunately, these contributions aren’t “data-driven,” and they lack political backing. As a result, they aren’t accorded much value.

But if education leaders are going to demand that teachers perform with the precision of surgeons, then teachers should be treated as specialists. Their experience and expertise should be used to reform policy and set budgets so they can get the educational support they need to help children succeed.

TESD Finance Meeting Update – TESD owns 16 acres in Chesterbrook!

January 11, 2011

66 Comments

I thank Ray Clarke for attending last night’s TESD Finance Committee Meeting. In discussion of the 2011/12 budget, the school district is trying to balance the preservation of the quality of education vs. the need to reduce costs and the challenge that struggle presents.

In reading Ray’s notes, I was surprised to learn that the school district owns 16 acres in Chesterbrook! This is interesting news to me because I thought there was only one remaining building lot in Chesterbrook and that is property owned by Pitcarin. Perhaps the acreage owned by TESD is directly adjacent to the Valley Forge Middle School and was purchased should the need arise for expansion to the middle school? If the property is not located directly adjacent to the middle school, than I am not sure it can be used for building.

Any readers with more information on these 16 acres? How did the school district come to own it . . . and why. Ray wonders if the property is deeded open space. If this is protected property, I guess I am naive because I didn’t know that TESD owned this type of property. Qyestion — is selling the Chesterbrook property an option? Don’t know if that is a viable solution (given the current economic situation) but one does have to wonder the value of the property.

Ray Clarke’s notes from 1/10/11 TESD Finance Committee Meeting:

After a great BCS game (which will have pleased Rich Brake!), a few of my takeaways from the meeting. It was taped, so readers will be able to judge for themselves. The focus was on current year performance, the details of the financial projection model and a quick run-through of the “Level 1” budget strategies.

1. The usually solid financial administration stumbled quite a bit in its attempt to explain the details and to reconcile the different looks at the financials and assumptions. It was really hard to follow, and I’m sure the next iteration will be better. It’s important that it is!

2. The current year continues to track better than budget, towards a very small fund balance contribution, depending on unpredictable (really?) movement across the salary matrix. There seems to be an interesting no-cost opportunity for Kevin Buraks’ law firm to ratchet up delinquent collections. Nice to see a budget strategy show up in increased rental income.

3. There’s room to tweak the assumptions in the projection model and its associated $7.6 million gap in 2011/12. Perhaps the base for medical benefits may end up being too high if current experience carries through (but it’s not clear why costs for fully covered T/E employees would have the same experience as the population at large). Also there was a very important discussion about purchased services, often required for special education amongst other things. The message is clear: even if quantity has to increase to meet needs, the only direction for price has to be down. The administration was unable to provide the P/Q split for the projected 5% increase

4. Dr Waters introduced the budget strategy discussion with a statement to which I won’t do justice here, but essentially noted that what worked in the past may not do so in the future and so not all change is bad, that not everything the district does is mandated or essential to educational quality and that the community can choose the level and timeliness of services it is willing to support. Many of the $1.3 million in Level 1 strategies look realistic and even already in place (although a good number are one time), but others need debate and union cooperation. Perhaps $1 million to take to the bank.

5. We didn’t get to Strategy Levels 2 and 3 (need more video game practice?!), but I encourage everyone to find a copy before the next meeting. There are many that look like good ideas, but also many for which I myself would pay more taxes if I were convinced there were no alternative options. And, who knew, there are 16 acres of idle district property right in the middle of Chesterbrook! Not sure if it’s deeded open space or if it’s developable.

6. Some discussion of the next TEEA contract, making it clear to all, as has been pointed out here, that the current matrix will be done on June 30, 2012. After that the district position needs to be: what combination of salary, benefits and deferred compensation comes to a level that the community can afford? Of course, as opposed to that, being frozen on the matrix with no new contract may be a reasonable union strategy (viz: Neshaminy).

Finally, a “Must See” event for the Valentine’s Day Finance Committee – our “Strategic Debt Counselor” will be on hand to prevaricate about the relationship between bond rating and fund balance.

TESD Finance Meeting Tonight . . . 2011-12 budget discussions continue

January 10, 2011

Comments

The Tredyffrin Easttown School District continues its 2011-12 budget discussion at tonight’s Finance Committee meeting, 7:30 – 9:30 PM (Click here for meeting agenda).

The meetings are open to the public and will be held in meeting room 200 of the Tredyffrin/Easttown Administration Building at 940 West Valley Road, Suite 1700 in Wayne.

Here is the link to the official recap of the Special School Board meeting as contained in the publication Action Line from the school district.

← Older Posts

Newer Posts →

Pattye Benson

Community Matters