Drive on, Drive On- My Position

In the previous post, we talked about one particular driver to the never-ending increase in the expense side of the School budget, the one that seems most popular these days, teacher salaries.

Before I talk about another budget "driver", I had one further point to make regarding the upcoming contract negotiations. It is completely illegal, under labor law, for me to discuss impending labor negotiations. People have publicly made a range of suggestions, from letting the contract simply expire and shrug our shoulders, to tearing it all up and start over, asking for "give-backs," freezing the contract, restructuring the contract. Some of these are interesting, if draconian and potentially unworkable ideas; there are also a number of interesting, potentially collaborative and productive ideas to be explored as well. It's all very interesting; unless of course you are a teacher. Then, according to the candidate for Mayor and Mr. Dean, you not have to shoulder the burden of more kids per class (correcting 90-120 creative writing essays, anyone? No time and a half for that, folks, just part of the job...); nonetheless, the Mayoral candidate and Mr. Deans agree you are the reason our schools can't contain rising costs.

Let me be clear about my opinion on this, with the full understanding that students interested in the SC race might be reading.

Are teacher salaries a budget expense "driver?" Yes. The only driver. No. In fact that suggestion has about as much resonance as a goose fart on a muggy day. Once the air clears, you're left with a smiling goose, and an existing problem. The suggestion itself is divisive, unfair, short-sighted and could potentially poison the atmosphere as we head into what I believe will be possibly some very creative and forthright negotiations.

I think it is fair, and within the law for me to state the following facts regarding upcoming contract negotiations:

Both sides are aware that money is in short supply.

Unlike previous years, as we head into contract negotiations, based upon my own discussion with teachers, there is feeling of trust between the admin and the union that I have not seen in my six years. There is a respectful relationship. That is a good thing.

Both sides will come to the table prepared, and I hope engage in a creative discussion that will include a clear understanding of the long term impact of negotiated items on future budgets.

Well, that is all I can say about negotiations.


Perhaps another driver, one with far greater long-term impact projected outwardly, assuming that efforts could be made to begin addressing what some in the community feel is the excessive rate of compensation for teachers is the absolute hemorrhaging of revenue from the feds and the state over the past 6 years.

In 2004, we lost 20% of our state Chapter 70 revenue, approximately $750,000.
Around that time, we also lost funding for providing transportation; as a result, in an area that was once heavily supported by the state, we have taken on a $500,000 a year burden, 20% of which is made up by assessed fees. We have lost a number of support grants received through the state, including health grants, literacy grants, and MCAS tutoring grants.

Let's add it up. $750,000, plus two years of transportation at $500 thou per, and lets just guess that before that we had two years at $350 thou per. So far, that's $2,450,000 in lost revenue over six years. Let's really go conservative on the health grants- let's say 6 years at $10,000 per year; as for the MCAS tutoring grants, let's be even more conservative- $5,000 for two years. That brings us up to $2,520,000 in lost revenue in six years. I'll let the candidate and Mr. Deans figure out how many teachers that would support- you can even use as a base rate of pay what you think their work is worth. I know you think they make too much, even though we are below the state median in some of our levels, so use your own figures; somehow neither Mr. Deans nor the candidate got around to actually valuing the work teachers do in terms of dollars.

And hey, there's actually an added incentive here-- if you set the value low enough, we might be able to qualify them for free and reduced lunch.

I'm not going to bother including the fact that during the past six years, the No Child Left Behind Act (or charade, if you prefer) has never been funded at more than 15 to20% of what the feds estimated it would take to bring the country into full compliance with the statute. That little detail hasn't prevented them from requiring that every single regulation embodied in the act be achieved within the timetables set (and not yet revised). Oucho.

I dunno, could be another couple million there, for sure.

Wow. Over six years, the real loss of $2,520,000 in revenue, and the possible loss of an additional couple of mil in federal money for academic achievement? No wonder the actual cash amount of the city's contribution has increased, even though the percentage of the city budget spent on schools has decreased slightly.

I'm still willing to hear an argument that teacher's salaries and benefits may be the most immediate area in which we can effect savings, albeit at a great cost to morale and potentially the actual loss of teachers to other, better-paying school systems, but asserting that it the "main, perhaps only driver" in jacking up our expenses doesn't stand up to simple scrutiny.


Next post, yet another driver...