Tredyffrin Easttown School District Archives - Page 41 of 42

Tredyffrin Easttown School District

Reading comments from teachers, school board members and taxpayers, it would seem that the teachers union, Pennsylvania State Education Association (PSEA) is adding to the element of confusion and misunderstanding. I am struggling to figure out if the misinformation is ‘by design’ from the PSEA to confuse the teachers (and therefore confuse the taxpayers). It is well understood that this school district like so many in this country is facing a financial crisis. It would appear that this is the time for all of us to work together instead of against each other. As a good first step, I would propose that the information disseminated be supported. Unfortunately when situations reach a crisis level within an organization (whether it is the school district, local government, corporations, etc) rumor mills explode and before you know it, things are out of control.

I certainly do not claim to be an expert on the school district or its budget by any stretch. Our daughter was not in the public school system so I admit to not being as involved as I should have been as a taxpayer. So I am coming at this subject at a distinct disadvantage with minimal background of experience. However, I am beginning to think that the teachers union is coloring the picture to its membership slightly different from reality. Or am I just reading the situation wrong? What is your opinion of the teacher unions . . . are they helping the case for the teachers or are they a contributing factor to the current budget crisis (and unrest) in the community? Is it unthinkable that teachers unions may re-open their teacher contracts for additional negotiations in light of the economic crisis? Or is that simply pie in the sky thinking?

Governor Candidates Meet with Teachers Union . . . Show Support for Education Funding & Teacher Pensions

January 18, 2010

2 Comments

In light of all the discussion yesterday with the TESD budget, I thought it would be appropriate to offer an update on Pennsylvania’s governor hopefuls and their meeting over the weekend. In Harrisburg, 6 governor candidates met with the state’s major teachers union, Pennsylvania State Education Association (PSEA). These governor candidates all support more state funds for public education and support the state’s commitment for teacher pensions, however only two offered specific ways to raise the billions of dollars that will be needed.

Joe Hoeffel (D) from Montgomery County thinks that the state should move to a graduated income tax, where wealthier people pay at a higher rate, while the middle and lower income residents pay at a lesser rate. The state currently uses a flat, 3.07% income tax rate for all taxpayers. Hoeffel said that 34 states now have a graduated income tax, which focuses a steep tax rate on the top 1% of the taxpayers. Hoeffel believes that this is fairer than the current flat income tax. As a Tredyffrin Easttown School District taxpayer, what do you think of Hoeffel’s proposal of a graduated income tax?

Tom Knox (D) Philadelphia businessman offered a severance tax on natural gas; taxing cigar and smokeless tobacco sales; and ending the loophole which allows companies to shield income by setting up offices in Delaware. I think some of these ideas have been bantered about by Governor Rendell. I don’t know about the other ideas but I sure think we should be taxing cigar and smokeless tobacco sales — why not? We tax cigarettes, why not cigars? I’m not sure why it’s not already being done.

Candidates Dan Onorato (D) from Allegheny County; Jack Wagner (D) state auditor general; and Chris Doherty (D) mayor of Scranton also attended the teacher’s union meeting along with Republican candidate Tom Corbett, state attorney general.

All 6 candidates agreed that school districts around the state need more options for raising money locally than just property tax (however, no one offered an specifics). Hoeffel did offer that nationally, states provide 47% of school funding vs. Pennsylvania only receiving 37% from the state. All candidates agreed that (1) state funding needed to increase beyond 37%; (2) increase funding for early childhood education programs; and (3) help find the $5 billion that starting in mid-2012 will be needed to fund teacher pensions. They all praised the teachers for the recent gains in student scores on standardized tests, saying Pennsylvania was the only state with uniform improvements regardless of grade level.

With all the TESD budget discussion on this site from residents, teachers and school board members, it is beginning to seem that the teacher union is coloring the picture to its members slightly different than reality. Or am I just reading the situation wrong? What is your opinion of the teacher unions . . . are they helping the case for the teachers or are they a contributing factor to the current budget crisis (and unrest) in the community? Anyone wish to weight in on the teacher unions?

View from Someone who is Both Taxpayer and Teacher in the Tredyffrin Easttown School District

January 17, 2010

24 Comments

There have been 2 comments that I have been aware of from Tredyffrin Easttown School District teachers – however, there was no indication whether they were also local taxpayers. However, I just received the following comment from an individual who is both teacher and taxpayer in our district. I thank him (or her) for weighing in from the perspective of both teacher and taxpayer. I thought the comment deserved front page attention. Do you agree/disagree with the teacher/taxpayer assessment of TESD’s current economic situation?

T/E Teacher and T/E Taxpayer:

As both a teacher and taxpayer in T/E, I am very concerned with the future of the quality of our school district and hence, the values of our property. We enjoy one of the finest school districts in the country which makes the values of our homes exponentially more than neighboring districts. We must remember, we enjoy the 2nd lowest school tax rate in the state. NO district is making the agressive cuts that are proposed. Internally, we have heard from the union that 30-35 teaching jobs in addition to all of the teachers hired this year as long term subs will be gone!!! Why??? The reality is that neighbor districts DO PAY THEIR teachers more, offer retirement healthcare and bonus, have much more technology, newer facilities (schools) and personal laptops for each student and teacher!!!

UNDERSTAND PLEASE…I am not complaining as a teacher! This past contract closed the gap between T/E teacher’s pay and other districts. For example, before this contract, Upper Darby teachers were making more than me as a T/E teacher. We do pay into our benefits which is also forgotten. This whole debate and situation raises the question of why is our district in so much trouble and laying off teachers when other districts have more and are not??? The answer is that we as taxpayers have been undertaxed in comparison to the districts around us (yes, I said it and mean it) and therefore, the district relied to heavily on transfer taxes. Now no transfer tax, we are sitting hear screaming about taxes!!!

As a T/E taxpayer, I want to know why we are not tapping our reserves-the piggy bank of nearly $30 million???? The proposed budget is adding another 1million into the piggy bank, why??? Why does no one hear ask about the reserves? What about the 2.9% tax and then tap the reserve?

A View From a Tredyffrin Easttown School District Teacher

January 16, 2010

25 Comments

I received a comment from a ‘concerned teacher’ in the Tredyffrin Easttown School District. Rather than seeing this comment buried on an old post, I thought it deserved front page attention. I urge the TESD teachers to present their views on the budget crisis in the school district; it’s important that we hear all sides.

It is easy for us to get caught up in this looming school district tax increase and possibly overlook the staff and how they will be impacted by the loss and/or decrease of programs, services, etc. Does the ‘concerned teacher’ make fair statements; does he or she represent how the majority of the TESD teachers are feeling? Should the value of our school district teachers outweigh the cost to the taxpayers? How does the teacher’s contract work — does that mean their jobs are safe from 2010-11 budget cuts? Does a real possibility exist that the school district budget crisis will require staff reduction in TESD? It would be great if some of our school board members could help us understand – their comments would be greatly appreciated. Remember, you can submit comments anonymously, and without email addresses.

Concerned Teacher writes . . .

I hope that when you post and talk about the delusional tax increase of 7.2% in a township ranked 499 out of 501 in millage rates in the entire state of PA, you realize you may be costing me my job as an extremely dedicated teacher in the district. And I also hope that you realize that our lack of passion in demanding health care reform (yes, a public option) enabled Blue Cross to increase the rates on our teacher benefits 28% which has incurred 5 million of the 9.25 million dollar deficit that is about to cause me to lose my job.

But you can continue to rant about your minimal tax increase possibilities to fund the educational system that is consistently one of the top 5 in the state and nation while teachers like myself fall by the wayside and desperately look for ways to support our families come June of 2010. Your quest to stay way more comfortable than you really need to be will cost you the quality of education for your children, and casting teachers, unions, and pensions as the villains of your community is reprehensible. Take a breath, step back, and be thankful for what you have…and realize that you may need one less SUV to pay for it rather than putting teachers out of work.

Tredyffrin Township 2010 Budget Could be in Jeopardy – as well as the School District Budget

January 13, 2010

Comments

The Philadelphia Business Journal is reporting that there are plans underway in the next couple of weeks for the introduction of the Property Tax Emergency Relief Act. Pennsylvania State Rep Steve Santarsiero intends to introduce this legislation that would provide a one-year break for property tax to anyone who has been unemployed for three months or long.

Santarsiero emphasized that the legislation would not forgive the taxes that are due, but would instead provide a one-year grace period. Under the Property Tax Emergency Relief Act, anyone unemployed for a minimum of 3 months could request a temporary exemption from paying property taxes for one year. The taxes would then be repaid, without penalty or interest, in quarterly installments over the following four years. Should the Act pass, the legislation would be in effect through the end of 2011.

Santarsiero was quoted as saying, “I don’t believe that anyone should lose their home because they cannot afford their tax obligation as a result of unemployment in this difficult economy, which we all hope will begin to pick up in the coming months.”

While I support the effort of the state to help give the unemployed a break with their property taxes, the Property Tax Emergency Relief Act certainly has the potential to play havoc with the approved 2010 township budget and the potential to increase the $9.3 million deficit in the 2010-11 school district budget.

How Can the Residents of Great Valley School District be so Different from the Residents of Tredyffrin Easttown School District?

January 13, 2010

2 Comments

How many residents typically attend our school board meetings vs. how many residents attend township meetings? There is quite an imbalance in attendees; does low school board attendance equate to apathy, lack of interest, . . . ? The school district is facing a $9.3 million deficit and what undoubtedly could be the highest tax increase to the residents in years. I just do not understand.

OK, now I hear that Great Valley School District held their budget meeting tonight and unlike TESD meetings of late, there was not a free seat in the house. Great Valley is facing a $3.2 million deficit in their 2010-11 budget of $78.8 million budget. Three main options discussed – (1) 2.9% in accordance with the Act 1 index, (2) 4.7% increase if the district gets two exceptions and (3) no tax increase. If the GVSD board applies for an exception, 4.7% is the maximum for a tax increase. However, if they take that route the preliminary budget must be approved by February 16. Last year, GVSD imposed a 1.7% tax increase. The current property tax rate in the district is 18.22 mills and the owner of a house assessed at $234,900 now pays school taxes of $4,279.

It would seem to me that neighboring Great Valley and Tredyffrin Easttown school districts are of similar quality, teacher and staff qualifications, economics of taxpayers, etc. so why is there is such a disparity in the interest of between both sets taxpayers? Why don’t we have standing room only at school board budget meetings? Keene Hall at the Township Building was full to overflowing for the township budget meeting yet only a handful of residents are at the school board meetings? And our school tax increase is going to be enormous! What am I missing here?

Tredyffrin Easttown School District Facing $9.2 Million Deficit . . . What's This Mean for Taxpayers?

January 13, 2010

15 Comments

In today’s Main Line Suburban Life newspaper, writer Blair Meadowcroft gives an update on Tredyffrin Easttown School District’s severe economic situation. There have been a number of postings and ongoing comments on this blog about the school district budget, but I think we need to bring the commentary back to the front page.

I know that the TESD budget is not a simple problem nor is there a simple fix but I want to pose a question to some of you who regularly comment on school district matters. If you could only offer one suggestion as to how to make a major impact on the budget, what would it be? I know that there is not much chance of re-opening the union contracts for the teachers but if that were possible would that be your solution? Would cost-cutting measures include teacher/staff layoffs? Would you suggest cuts in specific programs (if so, where — foreign language, sports, theater?) Decrease costs with increase in class size? Additional or increase in student activities fees (sports, after-school programs, parking charges) OK, it’s a perfect world and anything is possible (including re-negotiating of teacher contracts). What is your suggestion to the $9.2 million deficit in the TESD budget?

As we have all agreed, there seems far greater resident participation in the township government process than we have noticed with the school district — so I’m suggesting that we get TESD back on the front page of Community Matters. Some of our regulars — Ray, Andrea, Mike of Berwyn, Kate, Sarah . . . I invite your personal suggestions, help the community understand what this deficit means in real dollars to the taxpayers.

Taxing times are ahead for T/E board

By Blair Meadowcroft

The Tredyffrin/Easttown School District is facing a potential $9.2-million deficit for the 2010-2011 school year.

The shortfall comes from the fact that the proposed budget for the upcoming academic year, effective July 1, has expected revenues of $101.9 million and the projected expenditures are $9.2 million more at $111.5 million. According to district business manager Art McDonnell the $5-million increase in employee fringe benefits was the major factor increasing the deficit but there were others.

“The loss of revenue, the loss of transfer taxes due to the loss of sales, commercial mostly, the loss of interest income,” he said. “That’s been ongoing; we’re experiencing that now. And the increase in benefits costs comes from health-insurance coverage, and some from retirement and salaries.”

Increases in health care are to be expected, explained McDonnell, but on average the rates have increased 10 to 15 percent in the past, and this year the increase to the premium rate was 28 percent from Blue Cross.

“We did not expect that much of an increase,” said McDonnell. “This was the first time in a couple of years that the increase was way above what we were planning on. We were also expecting an increase to the retirement rate but not to the extent that it went up.”

The preliminary budget will be discussed again and voted on by the school board Jan. 25. The board however will not be voting on a final tax rate. According to McDonnell, by law the tax rate needs to be set by June 30 and will be voted on in June when the final budget is passed.

But at the Jan. 25 meeting, the board will vote to take one of three actions on the tax rate, according to McDonnell.“Pass a resolution to certify that the 2010-2011 tax rate will be at or below the Act 1 index of 2.9 percent; apply for exceptions to the Act 1 index, which will allow the district to raise taxes above the index without voter referendum; or authorize the administration to begin the process of seeking a voter referendum in May to increase taxes above the 2.9-percent state index,” said McDonnell.

If the board votes to tax higher than the limit set by the Act 1 index, there is the potential for $3 million more in revenue. That would come from an additional 3.73 percent.

However, in an effort to try to not raise taxes, Kevin Mahoney, chair of the finance committee, has asked the administration to come up with different ideas for reducing costs or increasing revenue, and any proposed strategies will be discussed at the Feb. 8 finance-committee meeting as well as at upcoming education-committee meetings.

So far a potential reduction of $2.35 million in expenses has been identified but nothing has been voted on or put into the budget yet.“We have some recommended strategies for the committee to look over and we are going to put together a presentation to show at the Feb. 8 meeting,” said McDonnell. “Hopefully we’ll find a way to combat the $9.2-million deficit.”

Whether or not the board decides to increase taxes, the potential for a deficit of some kind exists for the 2010-2011 academic year. The preliminary budget will again be discussed Jan. 25 at 7:30 p.m. at the school-board meeting and Feb. 8 at 7:30 p.m. at the finance-committee meeting. The June school-board meeting to vote on the budget is scheduled for June 14. All meetings are to be held at the Tredyffrin/Easttown Administration Offices at 940 W. Valley Road, Suite 1700, in Wayne.

“Public input will absolutely be considered and is encouraged,” said McDonnell. “We always have public-comment times at various points during and at the end of the meetings.”

PA Gives Final Nod to High School Exam Requirements

January 12, 2010

Comments

Pennsylvania has given its final nod to high school graduation exam requirements. A couple of weeks ago Attorney General Tom Corbett signed off on the paperwork to create Keystone Exams. I knew that this subject had been bantered about over the last couple of years with much back-and-forth over the merits of graduation test requirements for all high school students – didn’t know that it had received final approval. Keystone Exams had received the support of the Senate education committee, the state Board of Education and the Department of Education and the Pennsylvania School Boards Association and was just waiting on final approval from the Attorney General. The Keystone Exam plan will be a series of 10 end-of-course exams in a variety of subjects. I guess the thought is to create an insurance policy for the school districts and a way to gauge all the students. The Keystone Exams could replace the 11^th grade School Assessment test, and would count for at least 1/3 of a student’s final grade in that particular subject. With Corbett’s signature, the only remaining hurdle is getting the new regulation published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin. The tests would be introduced for the class of 2015. Some of the exams will be available for district review in the 2010-11 school year.

Looking at the cost of the Keystone Exams which is estimated at to be $160 million overall, spread over seven years, how does this affect our local school district budget Pennsylvania is grappling with budgets, how does this hefty price tag effect local budgeting requirements? Or does it? It would seem that the Keystone Exam is a done deal, so we live with the spending of the money; I’m just wondering how we pay for it. I have some doubts on the overall effectiveness of this exam; I would like further validation that speaks to that topic. But regardless of my thoughts on the effectiveness of the exam, this new legislature appears to now be in place.

Philadelphia Area School Districts Eligible for $460 million in Federal Stimulus Money, But Does TESD Qualify?

January 9, 2010

Comments

OK, I admit I am confused about the education stimulus money that is available in our area. Philadelphia and 20 other local school districts are eligible for $460 million in federal stimulus money and there is a April 1 application deadline for the money. This money is available in low-interest bonds and can be used for funding construction and renovation projects. The funds are restricted to projects that increase energy efficiency, or create or renovate space or reduce class size in the lower grades. Projects that foster technology, science and engineering are also eligible for the federal money. School districts would pay interest rates from zero to 1.5%, plus some costs (and the school districts would need to repay the principal).

If I understand the PA Department of Education guidelines for obtaining the bonds, only districts with the highest tax and poverty rates and those with rapid population growth over the last 5 years can apply and the money must be spent within 3 years of being received. The Philadelphia School District has over 300 buildings that are an average age of 62 years old so the only difficulty for these folks is prioritizing the list of renovation work. Philadelphia School District could use up to $147 million in bonds; the other local school districts would share $316 million. If the eligibility requirement is as I understand, than I would have thought that Tredyffrin Easttown School District would not fit the criteria. If TESD does not fit the criteria requirement, than how is that the Great Valley School District (which would seem to be similar to TESD in its ‘poverty level rate’ or rather lack of) is planning on using these bonds to finance several small projects for projects that total less than $5 million, including renovation of the district administration building and the installation of solar panels at the middle school.

This is a unique opportunity to save a lot of money on renovation and construction projects but does that mean that TESD is eligible for this federal stimulus money or not? I need some of the school district experts to help me — Ray, Mike, Sarah . . . do you or anyone else know the answer here? If so, please help me understand.

Senator Dinniman Proposes Taking the 'Politics' Out of All Pennsylvania School Boards

December 30, 2009

4 Comments

In catching up on some of the state news, I was pleasantly surprised to discover that Senator Andy Dinniman’s recent education bill 1086 bill was favorably approved by the Senate Education Committee. I have always believed that the selection of our School Board directors should be nonpartisan and was pleased to learn that Senator Dinniman is making strides to create this environment.

Senator Dinniman’s proposed bill would eliminate a party affiliation for school board candidates; their names would appear on the ballot without a designated party. The school board candidates would not participate in the spring Primary Election — the candidates names would only appear on the ballot for the November General Election. According to Senator Dinniman, Pennsylvania is one of only 3 states that still allows a partisan school board primary. Changing to a nonpartisan school board would focus the attention away from politics and instead direct the attention of school board leadership directly on education and their fiscal responsibilities. The bill proposes that instead of local political parties selecting and endorsing school board candidates for the spring primary, the candidates would be required to collect a certain number of signatures (the number of signatures required would be based on the population of the school district) and their name would appear on the November General Election ballot.

I completely support a nonpartisan school board approach for all school districts. This bill would remove the selection of school board candidates from the local political parties and give over the power to the voters themselves. You probably know that registered Independents in Pennsylvania are not allowed to vote in the spring primary. So as far as the School Board election is concerned, removing School Board candidates from the spring primary would allow Independents more of a say in the selection process.

Senator Dinniman’s proposed legislation was unanimously approved by the Senate Education committee (which is comprised of 7 Republicans and 4 Democrats) and now will go to the Senate floor for action. I am hopeful that Senator Dinniman’s Bill 1086 will receive unanimous support from the Senate – this would be a great way to kick off 2010!

← Older Posts

Newer Posts →

Pattye Benson

Community Matters