Economics Driving TESD’s Budget Woes . . . EIT to Be Explored

Ray Clarke attended the TESD Budget Workshop last night and provides the following commentary.  I am fascinated that the school district is bringing EIT out of hiding.   There is much misunderstanding about Earned Income Tax – we need an open and thorough airing of EIT.  I would suggest that the TESD and township partner for the discussion, have an outside expert give a presentation (like Easttown Twp did for its residents).  The presentation should be taped and then shown repeatedly on both the school district and township cable networks.  Some people hear ‘tax’ in the Earned Income and then simply shut-down. 

Whether it is the township or the school district we are talking about — we are currently facing tremendous economic hardship and all revenue sources must be explored.  Personally, I don’t want to pay more taxes and my personal household will suffer with EIT (my husband works for Unisys) however, . . .  there is also a reality to the situation.  I applaud the School Board for recognizing the need to explore Earned Income Tax and would hope that the Tredyffrin’s supervisors would be likewise motivated — it’s called exploring options.  Both the township and the school district have been faced with major deficits in their budgets that have required cuts in personnel, services, programming in an attempt to close the gap.  But to what end can we continue to make these cuts?  At what point do we weigh the quality of life that all enjoy in this community vs. increase in taxes?  I do not see how continuing to say, no new taxes  is a long-term solution to the problem.  Comments?

A quick report from the Budget workshop. Only 25 or so residents tonight, probably reflecting that there was little discussion of program changes. The occasion was used mostly to lay out a framework, stake out some board member positions, and set up the important April 12 Finance Committee meeting where the next level of expense reductions will be discussed.

However there were some really significant outcomes, worthy of full attention.

The basic parameters being positioned to balance the budget are:
– Implement the $4 million of expense reductions already discussed
– Tax to the full 2.9% cap
– Use $2 million of fund balance
– Find at least $0.7 million of 2010/11 reductions from $1.5 million of mostly non-educational strategies
Round numbers, subject to tweaking up or down.

The principal dissent came from Dr Brake, who is not thrilled with the proposed changes to the Middle School program. He seems to be the only one on the other side of this.

Dan Waters and Kevin Mahoney lost few opportunities to highlight the fact that these 2010/11 actions leave the structural problem untouched (shades of Tredyffrin’s “structural deficit”!). And they are right: 50% of the $4 million is one year only, and of course the fund balance use can’t continue for ever. The deficit for 2011/12 after the above programs would still be $7.5 million (8.2 – 0.7).

So, the administration is going to do the following:
– Deepen the study of the $2.6 million of class size, CHS period changes, etc. that – practically – can not be implemented until 2011/12. (Strategies 47-56, approximately.) If all were implemented, the deficit would be down to $4.9 million.
– Study the implementation of an income tax. Taxing to a likely 2% Act 1 property tax cap next year would still leave the district $3 million short, so this – to me – seems inescapable.

Some EIT information that’s new to me, and definitely has a major impact on the revenues for TESD: Kevin Mahoney stated that there is the potential to reclaim not only taxes paid to neighboring municipalities, but also to Philadelphia (which would apparently get reimbursed from gaming revenues).

Kevin Grewell has posted a lot of helpful EIT information here. Important features confirmed tonight appear to be that this would be implemented under Act 511, which is coordinated with the Townships. Resident tax is split between School District and the townships, non-resident money is collected by the Township (which turns out to be looking at fire department funding).

Debbie Bookstaber (from the last TSC) asked that the study include a comparison of an EIT and a PIT.

The Board took pains to emphasize that program changes must be fully vetted, particularly in the Education Committee, and subject to public input. Back to that April 12th meeting. Also, decisions will need to be made soon on the health insurance funding and bond issuance as part of the $4 million 2010/11 programs – the former in particular being highly susceptible to assumptions. I’d like to be convinced that all aspects of utilization risk have been thought through

Further School Budget Discussion . . . How will the District fund the gap?

Tonight is an important TESD Budget Workshop — 7:30 PM, auditorium at Conestoga High School.  Yesterday, I posted the agenda and materials for review.  This is our school district and our taxpayer dollars . . . how do you want your dollars spent and how do we fund the district deficit?

There have been many budget-related comments today on Community Matters — several of which were focused on EIT.  For further discussion, below is a commentary received from Ray Clarke.  In the past, Ray has offered his opinion on EIT but has updated his remarks based on TESD’s  current 2010-11 budget information.  Here are Ray’s comments — let’s use this as a starting point for discussion:

I’d like to get away from history (except as a guide to the future) and ponder what needs to be done to secure our kids’ education going forward. I think much of the evidence supports John’s advocacy of an EIT. I’ve posted it here before but here goes again, starting with updated budget numbers:

1. After one round of proposed program changes that have been vehemently opposed by many in the community, plus a 2.9% property tax increase, the school district will still be in the hole by $3 million in 2010/11, $8 million in 2011/12. (Note that it is relatively easy to squeeze expenses for just one year…..). No official word from Tredyffrin yet, but the township will need to fund contracted compensation increases next year, too.

2. A 1% EIT would raise $9 million for both Tredyffrin township and school district, of which $2.7 million is already paid by residents and $2 million would be paid by non-residents. (Easttown would also have to implement the tax.)

3. Perhaps a 2010 Tax Study Commission would ask a question like: “Would you prefer that property taxes increase 15% for all, or that the township residents not now paying a 1% EIT do so and the township gets a 1 for 1 match, worth $4.7 million a year now and increasing with inflation?” Might there be a different answer than to 2007’s question, which referenced only shifting taxes from property to income?

4. There will be in 2011 a county-wide mechanism to collect an EIT at low cost for all the other townships with this tax.

5. An EIT diversifies the tax base among all income earners and wealth holders.

6. The TSC stated that: “Had we been presented with compelling funding needs by the school board that could not be satisfied by the present system we may well have endorsed a change in the manner in which our schools are funded.”

So, given that …

 – There is no willingness by the TEEA to consider deferring accelerating teacher salary increases (6.9% in 2009/10 over 2008/9, and more contracted each year until 2011/12) and sharing health benefit cost increases

 – We need to fund $4 million a year in replacement capital and the capital fund is running dry

– There is no willingness to unlock capital tied up in unproductive properties (note: enrollment is projected to decline in the short and medium term)

 – $2 million of the $4 million proposed expense savings have only a one time impact

 …it seems to me that the need is indeed compelling. Whatever views one might have of past School Boards, it seems to me that the current one has to operate in a very different economic environment and that their actions should reflect that.

Views from the High School, Part I: Conestoga Students Support Their Teachers During TESD Budget Discussion

Members of Conestoga High School editorial staff weighed in on the District’s 2010-11 budget deficit in a recent issue of The Spoke. There were a couple of editorials that I found of particular interest and will post them separately.  This Op/Ed piece indicates student support for their teachers; attributing their educational successes to the faculty.  Based on past TESD budget and teacher union commentary on this site, views from our high school students present another interesting angle.  Do you think that the views of these specific students are representative of the student body?  Do you think that the teachers influence the students; in hopes that the students will help influence their parents (the taxpayers)?  Comments, anyone?

With early dismissal of school today, maybe local teachers and students can offer their opinions.  I will provide Views from the High School, Part II in a separate post.

Printed originally on p. 7 of The Spoke’s Feb. 23, 2010 edition.

Unsigned editorials represent the views of The Spoke editorial board, and not necessarily those of the administration, student body, community or advertisers.

      Defining our education

The recent economic downturn is affecting all corners of the country, causing numerous financial problems and leading to the loss of millions of dollars and jobs, both at the national and the local level.

As evidenced by the Tredyffrin/Easttown School District’s budget proposal for next year, the school board is also experiencing economic pressures as it tries to overcome a $9.25 million deficit without sacrificing the quality of the district’s educational program.

Nevertheless, to the consternation of many students and parents, the school board is making an age-old mistake. When tackling budget issues, all businesses naturally target areas with large expenditures. For schools, this leads to the reduction of some very important individuals: the teachers.

In a draft of budget reduction proposals discussed on Feb. 8, the school board’s finance committee acknowledged that “change is particularly challenging in schools where success has become the norm.” While this may be true, the board must also recognize that any success of the students is directly attributable to the high caliber teaching staff we have in the district today.

Still, several proposals in the budget draft will undoubtedly affect some of the most commendable employees in the field. Part of the proposal states that 19 teachers, including those who plan to retire or resign, will no longer be part of the school district next year. An increase in the number of instructional periods for Conestoga teachers is also recommended in the draft.

If this latter suggestion becomes a mandate, high school teachers will have to bear the brunt of extra pressure. An integral part of the school community, teachers serve as accomplished role models for students both inside and outside the classroom. Always available during school, teachers nurture individual student growth and help create learned citizens of the world—all this in a day’s work.

In fairness to the board, we in T/E are facing trying times, and difficult decisions must be made. However, teachers are invaluable resources that cannot be removed simply to alleviate economic woes. They are the most important and influential members of the school community and sacrificing them—though it may offer temporary economic relief—will only have a detrimental effect on the overall growth of students.

The suggestions made in the budget draft are not set in stone, though, and any ideas presented in the proposal can be changed. We, the Conestoga student body, need to step up. If you don’t like certain aspects of the proposal, then make your voice heard. Instead of showing your displeasure through Facebook posts, go to a school board meeting and directly address those who are involved in the decision-making process. It is, after all, your education. It’s your future.

T/E School Board Meeting, 2/22/10 . . . Meeting Highlights from Malvern Resident Ray Clarke

In addition to the Board of Supervisors Meeting last night, at the same time there was a T/E School Board Meeting at Conestoga HS.  As usual, my friend Ray Clarke kindly attended the School Board meeting and took notes.  Here are the notes . . . thank you Ray!

Selected highlights from the School Board meeting, chaired last night with a light hand by Jim Bruce:

1.  The extension of Dr Waters’ contract for a further 5 years.  The last item on the Agenda, but given ample discussion.  Strong support from the Board, led by Kevin Mahoney, and from community members.  There is no salary increase for the full term, and it was emphasized that there are no “side deals” and that effort was made to ensure that this is a “clean contract”  It will be available on the district web site soon.

This support seems to me well-deserved (taking the administration’s response ot the budget deficit elimination challenge as one recent example) and it says much about the Board’s commitment to transparency (a word much used last night) and to fiscal restraint, with its benchmark for future contracts of all types.  One downside to leadership longevity (Dr Waters will have been the Superintendent for 16 years in 2015) is that you might miss the fresh ideas that an outsider can bring.  That perspective can come in part from the Board, and it’s encouraging that we continue to see probing questions from Rich Brake. 

2.  Bill DeHaven reminded us of the times he climbed the fence at Teamer Field to play football, but more significantly spoke of the Citizen Soldier project that has compiled into a book the names of all T/E residents who served in all the nation’s conflicts up to World War II.  The book, available at the CHS and township libraries, is dedicated to its prime mover and my good friend and open space visionary, the late Neil McAloon.

3.  Nothing new on the budget, except that – per the Finance Committee discussion – the strategies are being regrouped to link related items, and this list will be available on the web site likely late this week.  I had hoped we might hear about substantive discussions of the TEEA offers alluded to at the Finance Committee meeting, but it seems there is nothing to report.  Kevin Mahoney emphasized that the Board is taking a 3-5 year perspective on the finances – clearly critical when one element of the near term solution is to use the fund balance, which can only go so far.  The Board has recently met with local legislators about the PSERS problem

4.  Three items related to our district going digital:  a) On line course options will be increased for 2010/11 to 25 courses not currently offered at CHS; b) acknowledgment of the role of blogs like Community Matters as well as all community input (a long list of correspondence to the Board); and c) next year CHS will submit its part of the college application materials electronically – should be a big time-saver, quality improvement and stress-reducer!

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

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

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

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

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

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

T/E School Board Meeting Tomorrow – Agenda Posted

In addition to the Board of Supervisors Meeting on Monday evening, there is a Tredyffrin Easttown School Board Meeting; 7:30 PM at Conestoga HS.  Here is the agenda for TESD meeting.

Included in the agenda materials is the Treasurer’s Report as of November 30, 2009 which was interesting to review, particularly in light of the 2010-11 budget discussions.  The last section of the agenda materials included ‘Recommended Action’ that the following policies and regulations be adopted by the School Board Directors. I found some of these policy updates interesting to read. In some cases it had been several years since revisions were required (example, as electronic device usage increases, updated school policy is required)  I appreciate that the school board gave us the old version and shows up the redlined updated revision. 

– Policy 1310: Visitors to School District Buildings and Classrooms
– Policy 1310: Classroom Visits by Community Members, REPEAL
– Policy 5228: Awarding of Diplomas to Eligible Veterans
– Policy 5400: Students’ Freedom of Expression
– Policy 5414: Electronic Devises: Use by Students
– Policy 5420: Unlawful Harassment by and of Students
– Policy 5422: Student Accidents and Injuries – Treatment and Reporting
– Policy 9310: Regular Monthly Meetings
– Policy 9312: Parliamentary Procedure
– Regulation 9331: Review of School Board Policies 

We should review where we are with the TESD 2010-11 budget gap.  The projected gap between revenues and expenditures is estimated at $9.2 million.  The gap was a result of loss of revenues and increase of expenditures.  At the January 25, 2010 regular school board meeting, school board members voted that any property tax increase would be at or below 2.9%, the statewide index.  To close the budget gap, there was proposed strategies presented at the February 8 Finance Committee meeting.  The School Board and administration continue to evaluate each proposed budget strategy.  The following 1-11 strategies were reviewed in detail at the February 8 meeting:

– Restructure the 7^th and 8^th grade program delivery
– Eliminate the Foreign Language in the Elementary School (FLES)
– Contribution from food/nutrition service fund to general fund
– Restructure middle school special area classes
– Reduce number of regular education aides/paraprofessionals
– Eliminate all CHS classes with fewer than 15 students
– Eliminate Supervisor of Special Education position
– Education Services Center disposition
– Outsource print shop
– Reduce number of Extra Duty Responsibility positions and club sports contribution
– Reduce 2010-11 budget requests to 2008-09 levels

At the March 8 Finance Committee meeting (7:30 PM Conestoga HS) and March 15 Budget Workshop meeting there will be continued discussions on the remaining strategies to reduce the 2010-11 budget gap.  The School Board has not made any final decisions regarding the implementation of the strategies.  It is my understanding that the School Board and administration will continue to work towards balancing the budget between now and the June 14, 2010 School Board Meeting.

One of the Community Matters readers posted an article from the New York Times a couple of days ago about teacher seniority and working to change the system for teacher layoffs; I’ll work to get that article up for discussion shortly.

Governor Rendell’s Proposed Budget Includes $354 Million in Increased School Funding

Governor Ed Rendell released his 2010-11 budget proposal yesterday. His budget proposes over $11 billion of taxpayer funding for educational services, which includes an increase of $354 million for school funding. Several reasons were cited for the funding increase including advances in achievement scores. In Governor Rendell’s proposed budget, education support services would receive $31.8 million in funding; basic education spending would receive $9.5 billion, for students in pre-kindergarten through 12th grade; and $1.8 billion for higher education with nearly $424 million of that allotted for financial assistance for students. State-aided private schools – including Drexel University and the University of the Arts in Philadelphia – would lose all their funding under the proposal. The exception is the University of Pennsylvania’s veterinary school.

Pennsylvania Secretary of Education Gerald Zahorchak offered that Pennsylvania was leading the nation in achievement improvements. Mr. Zaharchak emphasized a focus on increasing enrollment at a pre-kindergarten level. He feels that that there is an adequacy gap between where students should be performing and where they are currently performing which needs to be corrected. Mr. Zaharchak is suggesting that the gap would need to be filled by taxpayer funded state-subsidies. Accordingly, more than 300 Pennsylvania school districts would require more than $2,000 of taxpayer funding per student from the state to close this gap.

The pressures faced by school districts will result in local property tax hikes unless the state continues its commitment to close the adequacy gap, the Governor said. “On average, it would take a 40-percent increase in local property taxes to generate the same investment as the state will contribute over the course of our multi-year funding formula,” the Governor said. “When the state pays its fair share, school districts can keep property tax increases to a bare minimum.”

Here is Pennsylvania Department of Education 2010-11 Budget if you would like to read the details.

In case you are interested, here is Governor Rendell’s Executive Budget 2010-11 if you would like to see the entire proposed budget.

Will Governor Rendell’s proposed state budget have an impact on TESD’s 2010-11 budget?  Comments Anyone?

TESD Finance Committee Meeting . . . reporting by Malvern Resident Ray Clarke

As we know, it is impossible to be 2 places at once . . . and last night was one of those nights.  I attended the Board of Supervisors meeting but I knew that I had coverage at the Finance Committee meeting with my friend Ray Clarke.  The Clarke family was busy last night, Ray at the Finance meeting and his wife Carol attended the Board of Supervisors meeting!  I thank Ray for providing his notes from the meeting and would encourage other readers to add their comments.

The TESD Finance Committee played to a packed house in the CHS auditorium last night.  We got through about 15 of the potential deficit-closing strategies, with the next session slated for March 8th, where the plan is to complete a pass through all of them.  My take-aways:

– There was great passion from parents and students who had benefited from, or who would be impacted by, the programs slated for change.  Hopefully, understanding the concerns will be helpful in finalizing the new program designs.  Although the majority spoke against change, particularly in the Middle School programs, there were some with experience (for example, of the proposed Advisory period) that spoke to the benefits experienced in neighboring districts.

– The Board expressed confidence in the Administration and, based on their performance, that seems to be well placed.  In particular I thought that Rich Gusick, Director of Curriculum and much else, was knowledgeable and made reasonable arguments.

– The Administration believes that the programs in the first “reference code” (those for the most part previously discussed, although you would not have thought so!) will result in the reduction of 19.3 FTEs, and that reduction could likely be met through retirements (7 known so far) and resignations rather than lay-offs – but this will depend on certifications needed and available.

– The drama came with a prepared speech from TEEA President Ciamacca.  She was very concerned that the possible increase in High School teaching periods from 5 to 6 would leave little time for the many functions performed outside the classroom.  (Note that we were progressing systematically through the strategies from #1 on, and had not reached that – #47 – yet).  She did, though, state that the TEEA wanted to be part of the solution and outlined an offer to work the last three days of 2010/11 for no pay (claimed impact $600,000) and also an early retirement offer (claimed impact $1,000,000).  She handed a letter to Board President Fadem, which I took to contain those offers (and from comments made, I was led to believe that this was the first official communication from the TEEA, and that written offers had been requested before).  Finance Chair Mahoney responded for the Board, welcoming the TEEA as a stakeholder, but sternly chastising the “grandstanding and unfair” tactic of presenting an offer for the TV audience rather than “sitting down across the table as in the past”. 

The devil is always in the details.  Is there in fact a mechanism for forgoing 3 days of pay?  For 2010/11, or for 2011/12 also?  How much would the district have to pay to save the $1 million from early retirement and thus, what’s the present value of that proposal?  Things that do need to be analyzed in a dispassionate way.  There’s clearly a communication problem, and from my perspective, since the TEEA is the only beneficiary of the situation here (compare the salary matrix for 2011/12!), they need to step up to the bigger role that I have advocated to them since last year.  If the objective is to increase compensation to a certain parity level, perhaps it might just be OK to get there in 5 years rather than 2?

– The 15 or so strategies reviewed so far have very real impacts – fewer middle school specials, fewer aides, fewer low enrollment CHS classes, reduced admin position, reduced contribution to clubs, etc. – but it seemed to me that for the most part the impacted areas are spread around, and plans are in place to mitigate the adverse effects.  (But still only the savings, not the costs, of closing the print shop are listed!).

A big issue for me is that many of the big strategies impact only next year: the $1.2 million supply/materials cost deferral, the $0.3 million food service fund transfer (but maybe make food service a profit center?), the $125,000 mothballing of the ESC (why one time?), the $0.3 million from issuing debt for capital items (next month’s meeting will start with an explanation of that (accounting wrinkle?)), and so on.  So the expenses will pop right back up, on top of the next round of contracted compensation increases, and we’ll be right back in the CHS auditorium, but with fewer options. One commentator mentioned a likely 2% Act 1 cap next year.  (And remember, the country is a whisker away from a foreclosure crisis, and school taxes are over two months’ typical mortgage payments…..).  The one time programs account for $2.6 million of the $8.3 million on the table (excluding programs not recommended).

The event seemed to me a good way to get the community engaged and to indicate the amount of thought behind the ideas (although there can always be more!).  We heard, too, about the 800 member Facebook group for students engaged in the dialog.  There could be a lot to learn from, and demonstrate to, that constituency.

Question . . . Has our Local Teachers Union Made a ‘No Strings Attached’ Offer of $600K to the TE School Board?

I am getting bits and pieces about a ‘no strings attached’ offer made by our local teacher’s union to the TE School Board.  It is rumored that the Union offered the School Board $600K (or an equivalent of $1200/teacher).  My understanding is that the proposed good will offer was to show an understanding and appreciation for the TESD budget deficit and an offer to help. Has this offer been substantiated?  It is my understanding that the offer was not accepted . . . any truth to that? What about the district suggestion that the Union open their contract for re-negotiations instead of the $600K offer?

I do not expect school district representatives to comment on the offer.  Are there teachers and/or residents that have factual information that could be offered. Even if you have commented on an older post, I would ask that you re-post your comments here so that we can get them on the front page of Community Matters.  Let’s see if we can get the details quantified. 

It would appear on the surface that this is a very generous offer . . . most of these teachers do not live in the TE school district and are offering to help our district’s  budget deficit.  If this is indeed a ‘no strings attached’ offer can we expect to learn the details of the offer at Monday night’s TESD Finance meeting?

Draft 2010-11 Budget Strategies Released by TESD

As was discussed at today’s TESD Public Information meeting, the district has released a draft 2010-11 budget strategies.  We thank the district for releasing this background information in advance of February 8 Finance Meeting.  These proposed strategies are to aid in the budget gap and I suggest a review prior to next week’s meeting.  Your comments/input on the suggested strategies are encouraged but understand that this a ‘draft’ and should be viewed as a starting point (rather than the end result).

I just received an email from someone who was unable to open the pdf in this post.  I have checked it and it is working on my end.  The document is 50+ pages, so it may take a couple of minutes to upload.  You can also find this document on the school district’s website, http://www.tesd.k12.pa.us/

TESD Public Information Committee Meeting Update

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I was surpised to see the discussion of community blogs as an agenda item for the TESD Public Information committee meeting.  I attended this morning’s meeting and Ray Clarke has kindly provided an update on the meeting which I share below. Ray mentions the TESD 2010-11 budget strategies that are to be available online today.  I will post the document when it becomes available.

Ray Clarke’s Meeting Notes:

A quick update from this morning’s Public Information Committee. I came away with the sense that the Board is working diligently to improve communication with the public, but will take its time to embrace technology (eg video, blogs, Twitter) that reduces its control.

The good news is that there was support for a change in the Board Meeting process to allow public input on each priority Discussion/Action item – after any presentation of background material/recommendations and before Board discussion and vote. I suggested that while the Board needs to have the flexibility to manage the overall meeting length, the fewer a priori limits on number and length of comments the better. I think such a policy, if approved, would go a long way towards addressing the problems highlighted at last week’s meeting. It’s important to have a gauge of the extent and depth of public opinion.

On the Budget …..Next week’s Finance Committee meeting will be televised, but – I think – not live and not made available over the internet. The Committee was encouraged to look at practices from our neighbors, particularly Great Valley.

Also, in case anyone missed the item in the recent TESD Press Release, the “proposed 2010-2011 budget strategies that will be presented at the February 8, 2010 Finance Committee meeting will be posted on the T/E School District web site by the end of business on Tuesday, February 2, 2010”. TODAY!

So, plenty of time to identify your favorite at risk program and be prepared to speak for it! All the Info Committee members and the public at this morning’s meeting were concerned that this document be viewed only as a starting point for discussion.

And to close with comments relating to this blog (Community Matters): I got the sense that individual Board members do look on this (and others) as one of those gauges of public opinion I mention above. Along with, for example, formal District monitoring of traditional press sources, direct emails to the Board, etc. It may not have fully sunk in, though, that this is often a source of important news and information as well as opinion and analysis, and should perhaps be accorded a higher regard.

Back to TESD’s 2010-11 Budget, Where Are We With the Discussion?

Over the last week, I have been focused on the recent Board of Supervisors decision.  I know that some of you were urging me to get back to the school district budget discussion.  So for the moment, I’m leaving the unfinished township business and re-focusing front page discussion on our school district.  Ray Clarke sent me an interesting note, to look at this week’s agenda of the Public Information committee meeting of TESD.  Wasn’t I surprised to read that the sixth item on tomorrow’s committee meeting agenda was ‘The Districts Role in Community Blogs’.  I have to assume that this is referring to my Community Matters.  I have never attended a Public Information committee meeting but guess where I will be tomorrow morning at 9:30 AM?  I have preached greater ‘transparency’ on the School Board website to at least 3 of the current school board members so perhaps tomorrow’s meeting may be the right place for that discussion.  Since I will represent myself tomorrow, any particular questions/issues that any of you would like mentioned at the meeting?  This could be great starting point for Community Matters to help ‘bridge the gap’ with missing information that taxpayers (and teachers?) might need.

Whether you agree or disagree with the school board’s decision, the district budget for 2010-11 has been capped at the Act 1 index of 2.9% increase.  Now I think we need to look at what does working within the Act 1 index mean for the district.  What does this mean for the teachers and administration?  We know also that it is highly unlikely that teacher contract will be re-opened for negotiations.  Where do we stand with the issue of resolving the district deficit?  I understand that the administration has come up with a list of proposed cuts . . . anyone know what those proposed cuts are or which programs may be included? And what is the dollar amount on the proposed cuts . . . how much will this lower the budget deficit?  And do we know how much of the budget deficit is proposed to come from the district’s capital reserves? Let’s start the conversation rolling . . . I want your thoughts.  I am especially interested in public information suggestions/ideas that I can take with me to the committee meeting tomorrow.

TESD Preliminary 2010-11 Budget . . . Main Line Suburban Newspaper Calls ‘Reaction Mixed on T/E Plan’

The following article by Blair Meadowcroft appears in today’s Main Line Suburban newspaper.  The article details the mixed reaction of the passing of the preliminary 2010-11 school budget at Monday night’s TESD School Board Meeting.  One item that Blair mentioned that caught my eye concerned the replacement of long time 3rd grade teacher Walter Thompson at New Eagle Elementary with a long-term substitute.  There seems to be a vagueness concerning this matter and that information was coming from the children to the parents rather than the administration.  Anyone have further information on that topic?

As to how the cuts are to be orchestrated to make up the school budget deficit, is my understanding that we will be given further information at the Finance Committe on February 8?  I wonder if the adminstration and School Board will equally distribute the cost-cutting measures throughout the district?  Or, will certain grades or programs be more vulnerable?  Someone mentioned the reduction of AP offerings at the high school as a possible source, although at this point, guess most of us are in a ‘wait and see’ mode.  I wonder how much students or parents can impact the decisions?

      Reaction Mixed on T/E Plan

By Blair Meadowcroft

Although passed unanimously, the preliminary budget that was approved at the Monday-night Tredyffrin/Easttown Board of School Directors meeting did not gain the same unanimous approval from residents. The proposed preliminary budget for the 2010-2011 school year is $101.9 million from revenue and $111.15 million in expenses, leaving a $9.25-million deficit. On the table at the School Board meeting was the decision of whether or not to raise taxes in order to combat the deficit. If the board approved raising taxes up to the 2.9-percent Act 1 index, the deficit would decrease to $6.85 million. If the board approved to apply for exceptions to the Act 1 index, it would be allowed to tax 3.73 percent on top of the index, which could bring the deficit down to $3.75 million.

While not a perfect fix towards creating a balanced budget, the board was asked to vote on the proposed preliminary budget with the authorization to apply for the Act 1 referendum exceptions. After comments from various board members, it appeared some favored and some opposed approving the Act 1 exceptions.

“I will be voting no against the proposed preliminary budget because we need to protect the program and we don’t want to negatively impact the school,” said Kevin Mahoney, chair of the Finance Committee. “Tredyffrin has a large population of elderly people as well as five percent living below the poverty line and these people may not be able to afford a large tax increase. We should find necessary funding from the fund balance. It has been a rainy-day fund and we should use it to help us bridge this hard time. I suggest a minimal tax increase within Act 1 and I suggest we make spending cuts and use the fund balance where necessary.”

In disagreement, board member Peter Motel stated he intended to vote yes for the budget as presented until the possible spending cuts are determined. “We need to keep the option of going above Act 1 open, and if we do decide to go above the cap, we need to ask for public approval,” said Motel.

After discussion, the board voted on the motion to approve the proposed preliminary budget, with the authorization to seek out the Act 1 referendum exceptions, and the motion did not pass. The board then voted on passing the preliminary budget with an adopted resolution limiting the tax increase to the Act 1 index of 2.9 percent or less. This motion was approved and the preliminary budget for the 2010-2011 school year was passed unanimously.

At the end of the budget discussions, many residents voiced their opinions both for and against the outcome. The most common point made was confusion as to why the budget was not passed with the Act 1 exceptions. “I’m disappointed the Act 1 exception wasn’t considered,” said one resident. “The School Board did not have to take the additional tax increase but applying for the exception could have been a starter and should have been considered. I want our children to have a great program and I’m willing to pay up to the 2.9 percent or more. Whatever it takes to continue to present the best program with the best teachers.”

In agreement another resident stated that by not passing the Act 1 exceptions, the board has closed doors. “I don’t understand the logic behind limiting your options; you would not have been obligated to raise the taxes by passing the budget and yet by not passing it you now have cut your options,” he said.

It may have been surprising to board members but many residents not only voiced their willingness to pay higher taxes but also explained their concern that by not approving the possibility of higher taxes, the board has limited the opportunities and may now have to cut in areas, thus hindering the program that residents find so above par.

However, the hard times brought on by the poor economy did have some residents concerned that higher taxes would be one more bill they would have to struggle to pay. “I urge you not to take the entire 2.9 percent as a lot of us are already underwater, unemployed or retired and elderly,” said one resident.

This was the sixth meeting during which the budget was a line item, and the board will continue to discuss and rework the budget through June. The final budget must be approved at the June 14 board meeting. Until then the board intends to work on ways of lowering expenses and ways to use the fund balance in an effort to fix the deficit. The hope is to end the year with a balanced budget. For more information and to view the budget online visit www.tesd.k12.pa.us/index.html

In other news, a topic on the minds of many of the residents at the Jan. 25 school-board meeting was the replacement of a third-grade teacher at New Eagle Elementary School. According to many parents, Walter Thompson, a longtime teacher at New Eagle, is being replaced by a long-term substitute after an extensive review period for reasons they are unaware. The parents went on to say that their children were the only ones communicating to them what was happening in Thompson’s class and that they were the ones informing them of his being extensively monitored and audited.

Many parents expressed concern that various teachers instructed their children since October and that their third-grade education may have been hindered from the experience. Additionally many parents explained that their children were upset, even anxious over the situation.

The major complaint made by parents at the meeting was that the district did not tell them what was going on in their children’s class. They expressed that they were not trying to find out why Thompson was being audited or what he may have done, but wanted an explanation as to why the situation was handled the way it was.

After many comments and concerns were made by parents, the board re-emphasized that it were unable to give information about the Thompson.

Tredyffrin Easttown School Board to Hold the Line at Act 1 Index . . . Taxes Will Not Increase More than 2.9%! What Will be Cut to Fund the Deficit?

I was not at the TESD meeting last night – I was at Tredyffrin’s Board of Supervisors Meeting. (See last post, ‘Control of Tredyffrin Township in the Hands of 4 . . . Residents Will Now Play by Their Rules!’)

I have received several emails, telephone calls and also comments for Community Matters in regards to the School Board meeting and the standing room only crowd. Last night the School Board Directors decided with a 6-3 vote to limit the district tax increase to the Act 1 index of 2.9%. For many taxpayers this represented a complete reversal of where the last few days appeared to be heading . . . especially with the lobbying efforts of TEES Union President Debra Ciamacca. The school district teachers (and some of the T/E parents) were hopeful that the School Board would vote in favor of applying for Act 1 exception which could conceivably have sent the district tax increase to nearly 7%.

With a proposed 2010-11 school budget indicating a deficit of $9.2 million, it is difficult to understand exactly where the administration and School Board members will propose cuts . . . remembering that program cuts can translate in to teacher furloughs. Ray Clark provided us with some of his observations on last night’s TESD meeting. His remarks can be found here. Ray points to the February 8 Finance Committee as the next step in the district budget timeline. In anticipation of another large audience, it is suggested that the School Board relocate the meeting to the school auditorium.

I am anxious to get the dialogue going about the school budget; what does last night’s meeting represent for the school district? How will the School Board and administration prioritize the program cutting that will be required to meet the remaining deficit? Will the teachers and parents have any influence on the decisions?

Between the School District meeting and the Board of Supervisors meeting, last night represented a night of decisions that could have a long-lasting effect on our community.  I look forward to hearing from you on both topics.

Please Let’s Not Put the Children in the Middle!

Based on the 2 following comments, I am asking the School Board, the administration and the teacher’s union (TEES) to please not put our school children in the middle of this school budget tug-of-war.  I am hopeful these comments do not represent the majority of our teachers.  We are agreed that this is a difficult time for taxpayers and teachers alike, but it should not be classroom discussion with our children.

Ray Clarke, on January 25th, 2010 at 2:43 pm Said

” . . . As of today, the teachers are already talking to the students about program cuts – reduced electives, etc. As far as I know, nothing has been decided, so this seems rather a scare tactic.

Parent, on January 25th, 2010 at 4:48 pm Said

” . . . It may very well be true that the email campaign originated on the teacher’s home email accounts on their own time, i won’t argue that point. But be very sure that there is discussion in the schools about this topic. If fact it is occurring fairly regularly in some classrooms by some teachers directed toward the students… Yes, some teachers have used the classroom as a forum to have kids encourage their parents to attend the meetings, others have taken to making their UNION case toward 6th, 7th & 8th graders!!!

So, to the T/E Teacher who authored the previous post, save your indignation, or direct it toward your coworkers who are crossing the line by bringing this into the classroom on a regular basis. It is clear that not all of your coworkers share your level of judgement or uphold their professional responsibilities as well as you.