3/19/12 Property & Finance Committee Meeting

The 3/19 P&F meeting had a large agenda, but the meeting moved along well and lasted less than 2 hours. There were about 10 people in the audience which is less than usual, but some people were most likely attending the Attorney General's presentation at Stetson. That is where board member Maureen Snook was, and Maria Pimley was also not in attendance at the meeting but came later for the Executive Session.

Several administrative items related to the Westtown-Thornbury and Penn Wood renovations were covered by Kevin Campbell:

1. Indemnity Agreement with Westtown Township: The committee agreed by a 4-0 vote for the district to absolve the township of any building inspections during the construction process of the 2 school renovations. This removes any risk to the township as they are held harmless, and allows the district to save on duplicate building inspection fees.
2. Inspection Services: The committee agreed by a 4-0 vote to approve 2 firms for the construction testing and inspection services at W-T and PW.
3. As-Built and Progression Photos: The committee agreed by at 4-0 vote to hire Multivista Construction Documents to provide photographic documentation of the renovations and additions at W-T and PW. The estimated cost is ~$41k and this cost is included in the existing renovation budgets.

The following financial items were discussed:

1. Posting of Monthly Treasurer’s Report: Sean Carpenter recommended that each month’s Treasurer’s Report (which lists checks to be issued) be posted to the district website after board approval at the monthly meeting so that individuals do not have to request it.
2. Financial Impact Study of Revised Transportation Plan: A summary report of the financial impact of the reduction in the number of buses due to bell schedule changes and bus stop reduction was reviewed (additional detail can be found on the district website). The report showed that 26 buses were reduced compared to the anticipated 23, and that taking into account vendor contract and fuel charge increases, the district saved $1,232k vs. the $1,150k projected.
3. Review of Budget Forecast Model: Dr. Moore reviewed changes to the current financial projections.
   -2011/12: Projected expenses have decreased by $341k and this savings will be used to offset the anticipated gap for the 2013/14 school year. No changes have been forecasted for revenues, however they will continue to monitor tax collections and we could see some changes at the end of the school year. -2012/13: Revenues have increased by ~$362k due to the addition of activity and advertising fees which were approved at the last board meeting. Expenses have decreased by ~$982k, mostly due to the anticipated impact of Budget Committee Task Force initiative approvals (e.g., reduction of 7.9 FTEs). The result is a $1,345k favorable impact to our budget; $853k of it will be used to balance the 12/13 budget, and the remainder will be put in the General Fund Balance. If the Act 1 Index 1.7% tax increase is taken and $1.4M is taken from our fund balances ($1.2M from the PSERS Fund and $178k from the General Fund), our budget will balance. -2013/14 and beyond: the latest forecast still shows sizable gaps to be closed for the out years due to rapidly increasing PSERS expense and anticipated slow growth in the local tax base and state funding.
4. 2012-13 Budget Calendar and Resolution for Approval: The board voted 4-0 to adopt a resolution to publish the Proposed 12/13 budget on 3/27 and to adopt that budget as final on 4/30 (it was stated that the 4/23 board meeting would be moved to 4/30). There are 2 things about this that puzzle me. First, the final budget is not due until June 30th; given the unknowns of the labor contract negotiations and any changes that will be made to the state budget, why not wait the 2 months so that the best data is used? Second and more importantly, the proposed budget includes the Act 1 Index 1.7% tax increase. I commented at the meeting that I had not heard anyone discuss their position on the tax increase, so was wondering when that was going to occur. Sean Carpenter stated that he believed the tax increase would be passed, but that any board member had the option to bring it up for discussion or express disagreement to it between now and April 30th. The room got very quiet and many of the board members looked down at the table, so I'm not quite sure what's going on there.

Next on the agenda was the discussion of 2 Board Resolutions. For those unfamiliar with resolutions, they are formal legal documents that the board votes on and if a majority approves, are signed by the board president and secretary. Depending on their topic and whether some action is being requested, these resolutions may be forwarded on; the resolutions that were discussed tonight would be sent to the PA General Assembly as they deal with state law and financing.

The first resolution discussed was the Resolution Supporting the School District Exemption from the Prevailing Wage Act (HB 709). This resolution requests that the PA General Assembly enact House Bill #709 which would exempt school districts from paying Prevailing Wage which they are currently required to do for construction projects costing more than $25k. Prevailing wage tends to be higher than the market driven rate and therefore forces schools to pay more for projects than they otherwise would. This added cost does nothing to enhance education, so school districts' exemption would be beneficial to WCASD and all other districts.

The second resolution discussed was Increased Funding for K-12 Public Education which Sue Tiernan asked be added to the agenda. This resolution highlights the shortfalls in current state funding for public education coupled with the unreasonable mandates that the state requires and is continuing to cut funding to support. It asks that the General Assembly increase K-12 state funding in areas such as Basic Education, Special Education, charter school reimbursement, and Accountability Block Grants which were reduced last year and are now being eliminated (these grants, among other things, pay for all day kindergarten). It was disheartening to hear some of the board members' opinion on this resolution. One board member stated that he did not feel comfortable simply asking for "more money" since not all school districts have made sufficient cuts, and another pointed out that because of the wealth of our district, we would get a very small portion of any increase in state funding.

This board has a duty to its local taxpayers, not the taxpayers of other school districts. This district has cut millions of dollars from its budget, and for every dollar the state takes away either the local taxpayer has to make up the difference or additional cuts need to be made. The board was elected to champion our school district, and part of that responsibility is ensuring that the state meets its constitutional obligation to provide for a public school system. Furthermore, one of the most dangerous aspects of this budget is a change in the funding methodology for transportation and Social Security. Historically these have been funded based on costs incurred, however it appears the Governor has changed this to a flat discretionary amount which relieves the state of all risk associated with increases to these costs, and puts 100% on the local taxpayer. Sean Carpenter, Sue Tiernan, and Dr. Scanlon will be working on revisions to this resolution and I plan to follow this closely as I believe the district needs to make a stand and this should be something everyone can support. If you agree, why not take 5 minutes to email the board that you would like to see such a resolution passed?

The last topic covered was the second reading of 3 policies related to board and committee meetings, 2 of which were revised and 1 of which is new. I wrote about the new policy, KCA-Public Participation in Board Meetings, in prior blogs. I still strongly disagree with this policy and wish the board would take the time to address the many concerns the public has voiced. Historically questions have been taken by members of the public after each agenda item at committee meeting. As Maria Pimley noted at the last board meeting, the committee meeting is where you really learn about what is going on...well a large contributor of that learning is in jeopardy.

While Sean Carpenter did have verbiage added stating that the committee chair has the discretion to take comments on certain topics, it will be on a case by case basis and is not required. While these board members might have the best of intentions, they will not be here forever and who knows how future board members will interpret this policy. Explanations from the board centered on 2 themes: 1) since the chair can still take commentary, not much will change and 2) committee meetings are for the board to do its work and the public is only entitled to observe, not to participate. This is exemplified by the comment of board member Linda Raileanu: “The working meetings are just that, working meetings. The only thing that is required is we allow you to observe us while we’re working. It’s only observational. We sit and we listen to everyone’s comments, technically it’s only a courtesy we accept anyone’s comment.” To point 1 I say if it ain't broke, don't fix it, especially given this board has such little experience on which to base such a large change in protocol. As for point 2, honestly I am offended by the suggestion that our elected officials taking time to listen to their constituents is merely a courtesy to us and not of any value. Refer to this article for more on this topic: http://www.dailylocal.com/article/20120322/NEWS01/120329880/west-chester-school-board-mulls-new-comment-policy&pager=full_story

Whether it is intended this way or not, this policy feels like nothing more than an attempt to stifle dialogue and keep the board from having to address questions in public. While a new communications plan was outlined in the March Board Connections newsletter, none of the methods listed will replace the existing dialogue that takes place at committee meetings. It states that questions can be handled via email or phone, but there is nothing that explains whether all questions will be answered or the expected turnaround time. Furthermore, there is often learning in hearing the questions and responses that others ask, since sometimes people don't even know enough to ask a question. This opportunity for the public to become better informed will be lost. If you also have a problem with this new policy, write the board and/or Daily Local before Monday because after that the new policy will be in effect. See this DLN opinion piece for more: http://www.dailylocal.com/article/20120323/OPINION03/120329793/west-chester-board-s-proposed-comment-policy-is-too-restrictive

Since I brought up the newsletter, I will end with a few thoughts on that. It does contain some high level information and I do appreciate their documenting the communications plan, although as I said I believe it is lacking a component that provides for any meaningful dialogue. The last page did not sit well with me, however. I appreciate that some board members contribute to our schools with their time and money, and I understand that they are trying to make themselves appear accessible. But there are many parents who spend innumerable hours in our schools, and they have neither the option nor [likely] the desire to publicize their service across the district. I just wish that space had been used for a more worthwhile purpose such as FAQs, budget information, an update on labor negotiations, or anything else that helps us understand what this board's plan is for our schools.

Don't tune out early, you'll miss the good part

No real surprises this month at Pupil Services and Education committee meetings and while it was an admittedly slow start to the evening, the end is well worth the wait, so please bear with.

Pupil Services Summary:

Policy JCDAEF, Audio, Video or other Electronic recording of meetings had its second reading and will go to full Board approval. http://documents.wcasd.k12.pa.us/dsweb/Get/Document-256686/JCDAEF-Audio%20Video%20or%20Other%20Electronic%20Recording%20of%20Meetings%2011-28-2011.pdf

The following Phase 2 Task Force findings were discussed:

1. Reduction of Gifted Supervisor (savings of $126,500) and 2 elementary gifted teachers (savings of $142,000)discussion is postponed until April.  Elementary gifted teachers were thanked by both Dr. Ranieri and Dr. Pimley for their diligence in creating a packet of information (which the public will see in April) that will hopefully help the Board make a final decision on number of elementary gifted teachers and need for Supervisor  of Gifted Program.   We were given a breakdown of caseloads and many, including Board President Vince Murphy, noted discrepancies. Dr. Ranieri agreed there are inconsistencies and affirmed the  need for her to oversee referrals and ensure continuity in process.

2.Reduction of one non-public RN (registered nurse) position (savings of $40,070).    The District provides this service 4 days per week to 5 parochial schools. Recommendation is to reduce to 3 days, which would equal 1 full-time RN position, thus making the parochial school responsible to obtain nurse for that extra day.  Per state ratio for school certified nurse (1:1500), Mrs. Snook makes the point that WCASD has “extra” nurses with 12.4. The principal from Sts. Peter & Paul was in attendance and suggested that the District find other areas, rather than the “health and welfare of our children” to cut costs.  Both Mrs. Adsett and Mrs. Snook suggested looking at our “extras” and possibly giving back some hours to parochial.  Ms. Railneau, speaking in her capacity as an RN,  expressed discomfort with placing this item on the consent agenda. Vote: Adsett, Yes; Pimley, Yes; Snook, No; Tiernan, Yes –  NOT on consent agenda for Board meeting

3.Reduce 1 caseworker position, decreasing from 7 to 6 (savings $52,753) – Dr. Ranieri reported somber 2/12 increases: 17% increase in students enrolled in school lunch program from last year, 26% increase in medical assistance, and the entire year 11/12 saw 113 homeless and in 2/12 we are already at 106.  Mrs. Adsett questions whether these numbers are a trend or just particular to this year “due to the economy”.  Dr. Ranieri did not have numbers to show “trend” but will provide Mrs. Adsett with them. Vote: Adsett, Yes; Pimley, Yes;Tiernan, Yes; Snook, abstain – NOT on consent agenda.

High School Guidance Survey results are in and were summarized by Dr. Salisbury, who noted “areas of need”.  Next steps?  Seven counselors and original PTOC reps involved in crafting survey will assess both strengths and needs. Results, broken down by school, will be made available by end of year or at latest fall 2012. After analysis of results, Board member comments of note:  Mrs. Adsett was befuddled at the results of guidance visits by students , questioning  if we were “reaching students” -she was assured by administration that we are.  Mr. Coyle asked Dr. Salisbury if she would look at “low numbers” and she reiterated she would assess “areas of need”. Ms. Railneau asked if we had counselors available for incoming 9^th graders to make them aware of services and again, a unanimous “Yes” from administration. 

Education Meeting Summary:

Revision of 2011-12 calendar:  with no snow days, school is out with a ½ day on June 8 and graduation dates remain the same.

Second reading of 2012-13 calendar:  in large part due to parent input, the 10/11/12 in-service was moved to 10/18/12, allowing  more time to adjust into October, especially with the 9/26 day off.  February 6,7,8 ½ days/conferences moved to 13,14,15 which will greatly help travel plans, citing the 2/18 President’s Day holiday.

Before and After School programs: Dr. Missett asserts that we “will have before and after school care in all buildings next year” .  YMCA vs. Tot Time Child Development Center, a corporation that provides services in school buildings and is currently in both Centennial and Tredyffrin-Easttown districts.  At a glance, Tot Time base prices  appeared lower, but concerns were raised about what happens on days off, snow days, etc.  For example, is there not more cost to the District when school is closed, since Tot Time provides services in our schools?  Tot Time reps feel that, over time, the prices will be comparable to Y.  There was much back and forth between opponents, when  an astute audience member suggested we be provided with a side by side comparison of 1) cost to parent; 2) revenue to school and; 3), cost of keeping facilities open on days off, etc.  Dr. Scanlon recommended to the Board  the district go with Tot Time as before/after care provider.   Y reps noted that they would continue to offer competitive services AND transportation in an effort to keep its customers.  From its website, Tot Time appears to be a PA corporation based in Plymouth meeting, with a PO box in Plymouth meeting for contact information. More details at  http://www.dailylocal.com/article/20120312/NEWS/120319858/-1/news/pane

 “Transportation Plan Impact Study” for Fugett Middle School:  This was the analysis performed due to parent concerns about the impact of the 2011 bell change schedule at Fugett MS. Data was compiled for the period 8/29/11 -2/29/12 and impact in 4 areas analyzed:

                 1) Grades/achievement - results show gains over last year

    2) Discipline- no significant findings

    3)Attendance (lateness and absences) – here there was actually a significant increase in tardiness, deemed to be “logistical”  due to shortened homeroom period.  In response, Principal Whitehead will extend homeroom by 5 minutes

     4)Participation in extracurricular activities – no impact . 

Long story short – transportation plan/bell schedule change analysis produced “nothing compelling to intervene” (Dr. Bertrando).  Board comment: Ed Coyle recalled there was a man at the last Board meeting questioning this and suggested it should be on website.  “That” man was one of the parents who requested such an analysis and has already been in direct contact with administration, but they will post on website. Dr. Pimley wanted to see achievement benchmarks for other schools to make fair assessment and while Dr. Bertrando cautioned there would most definitely be variances, he will oblige.

And here it is, the stimulating climax of the evening under  “Other” consisted of  2 board polices introduced by Dr. Scanlon:

1)      Revisions to Graduation Requirements Policy IHF which had  its first reading at February Education Committee Meeting, had its second reading and will be on consent agenda

2)      Policy LEB, Relations with Parent Organizations.  It was a bit hard to hear (on that note, kudos to Pupil Services chair Dr. Pimley for using a microphone during her meeting) but we did pick up that it had to do with parent organizations, fundraising and “politics”.  Of course, the sticky part here was that none of us had a copy of the policy, including the Board. Much was said and there was general agreement that no one, Board or public, could discuss the policy without having it in front of them.  Dr. Scanlon said it would be on the website in the morning, but it was actually on last evening and warrants sharing.  Dated 1974 (the year Nixon resigned), it reads:

"RELATIONS WITH PARENT ORGANIZATIONS

The Board is aware of the constructive role which the parent-teacher groups can play in the school

system. The effective leadership provided by these organizations is valuable to the improvement of

educational programs and community support of the schools. The Board shall offer these groups

its full cooperation, and urges parents, teachers, and administrators to become enthusiastic

participants.

The Board shall not request or expect parent or parent/teacher groups to be fund/raising

organizations for the public schools, but it shall seek their support for the approval of a District

budget that will provide for all essential services, materials, and equipment.

Based on practice and adopted 1974"

http://documents.wcasd.k12.pa.us/dsweb/Get/Document-832/leb.pdf

Makes perfect sense.  The first paragraph is just lovely and of course we shouldn’t be fundraising for ESSENTIAL things (there’s a word ripe for  interpretation).  But noting no mention of “politics”, we assume  the plan is to update this policy to include the “politics” bit.   Dr. Scanlon stated that PTO bylaws already affirm they are “non-political” entities (he knows this because he requested copies of PTO/HSA bylaws from all schools last year) and he wants Policy LEB to reflect the same.  Someone questioned last May’s legislative event and Dr. Scanlon said that was not “political” but informative as are PTOC Meet the Candidates events.  Mrs. Adsett expressed concern that the district could get in trouble with the IRS because PTOs are non-profits and should not be supporting political candidates/causes.   I do not know for a fact that all district parent organizations enjoy non-profit status, but still a valid concern by the Chair of the Committee.  Board President Vince Murphy expressed his feeling that if a particular piece of legislation, such as Prevailing Wage Act, would be beneficial to the district, then we would want to support that and encourage our parents to do the same. Ms. Railneau, who was now speaking in her capacity as a  Judge of Elections (who knew?),  clarified for all in attendance the distinction between an individual’s actions and that of an organization, I believe attempting to make the point that it is not a problem with the PTO, but only a “few members” . 

I  greatly respect the need for District polices to mesh with those of parent organizations to facilitate “full cooperation” as stated in Policy LEB.    However, I am admittedly puzzled by the timing of this.  As he does every month,  Dr. Scanlon will attend the PTOC meeting (comprised of all District PTO leaders) this Thursday.  Would it not have been a more prudent move, and certainly a less patronizing one, to  wait two days and communicate first with the group affected by this policy revision?  He couldn’t have been banking  on a first reading with no copies available for review.  But if nothing else, this “reading” (I hesitate to call it that) certainly proves  to the Board and the public that he is watching out for those pesky parent public education advocates, readying a hand-slap policy for the next time they get out of line.  On that note, one wonders if there will be consequences to “breaking” the policy: suspension or perhaps even expulsion from  PTO?   Realistically, where is this going?  Here’s an idea: how about we shelf the “revision” to LEB and draft a new policy, one that originates from the work of frank and honest communication between adults and without the baggage of the last election?  Let’s let it go.

PA EDUCATION BUDGET AN INVESTIGATION IN MATHEMATICS

On February 7^th, Governor Corbett presented his first draft of the 2012-2013 budget.  The Governor touted increased education funding for K-12 by 3.7%, legislature decried cuts in basic education subsidy.  What does the data substantiate for our District?

Beginning this fiscal year, 2012-13, the Governor combined funding for basic education, school employees social security and transportation for public, nonpublic, charter and IU students into one line item entitled, “Student Achievement Education Block Grant”, (SAEBG) to provide school districts with more flexibility in their operations.

The budgetary data for WCASD is summarized below:

                       2011-2012                         2012-2013

SAEBG      $ 14,516,461                      $ 14,678,343

Special Ed  $   5,028,002                       $   5,028,002

PSERs        $   3,834,909                       $   6,026,432

Total           $23,379,372                         $25,732,777

A quick calculation using the Governor’s formula indicates SAEBG funding increased by 1% from last year and our PSERs funding increased 57%, the State’s mandatory contribution, with special education flat funded.  However, the data does not include the loss of an accountability block grant of $126,662 nor does it return funding eliminated in 2011-2012 for charter school reimbursements of $1,478,000.  Taking the loss of $126,662 into account, the adjusted increase in state funding is $35,220 or a 0.15% increase year over year.  The governor has shifted all funding for charter schools to the local level.  WCASD anticipates $7.7 million for charter schools expense in 2012-2013.  The long-term impact of block grant funding raises concerns that state funding will not keep pace with actual expenditures.  The Governor is effectively shifting more responsibility to the local districts for public education funding.  This could be problematic for WCASD in the long term if our current Board maintains we can continue to balance the budget through expense cuts and non-property tax revenues. The goal of WCASD should be to continue the work of a strong district without weakening it through cuts in staff and programs.

February PSBA and Legislative Update

The February WCASD Board Pennsylvania School Board Association report noted the detrimental impact of two of the many unfunded state mandates on the district. It is interesting to note that both of these mandates are part of PSBA’s  FREE (Focusing Resources on Educational Expenses) Plus* initiative.

The FREE section of this PSBA campaign targets unfunded mandates in 3 specific categories:

1. Personnel Management – furloughs, collective bargaining, school nurses, etc.

2. School Funding – special education funding, cyber charter school funding 

3. Buildings, Construction, Operations and Transportation – bidding, transportation, delinquent real estate tax collection, and prevailing wage

*(The “Plus” portion deals with waivers that would allow school boards to suspend a wider scope of mandates)

The two unfunded mandates mentioned by WCASD Board PSBA representative, Maureen Snook, fall into FREE category #3:

       1. Delinquent R/E tax collection:  Mrs. Snook cited HB 1877, which  amends the Real Estate Tax Sale Law, allowing school districts to forego the commission paid to a local county tax claim bureau and  to utilize the services of entities other than the local county tax claims office for collection of delinquent real estate taxes.  Basically, the district would save the 5% commission paid to the County on delinquent taxes.  Read recent House Finance Committee testimony by Cheltenham School District business manager on HB1877: http://www.psba.org/issues-advocacy/advocacy-services/legislative-testimony/2012/HB1877-delinquent_property_tax_collection-02132012.pdf

      2.  Prevailing Wage Act, HB 1329: School districts must pay state-mandated prevailing wage rates for workers on every construction or renovation project in which estimates exceed $25,000. This bill would raise the threshold to $185,000 and create an annual inflation adjustment to that threshold. Mrs. Snook reports WCASD has six-eight  $25,000+ projects per year and the district could save between $120-180,000/year if the threshold were raised.   To see a great example of PSBA advocacy in action, read about the Donegal School Board who unanimously passed a PSBA resolution to support prevailing wage reform:  http://lancasteronline.com/article/local/599543_Donegal-board-supports-prevailing-wage-reform.html 

The introduction of the FREE Plus campaign, though admittedly implicit, is encouraging and we  remain optimistic that our Board PSBA representative will continue to provide us with  information about additional  unfunded mandates included in the initiative. (Visit http://www.psba.org/free-plus/  for more details on how local boards can  “encourage elected officials to approve legislation aimed at providing meaningful mandate relief”).

Mrs. Snook  also serves as our legislative liaison and that portion of her report cited the deficiencies of the STEB (State Tax Equalization Board) system.  We were reminded that both Dr. Moore,  through correspondence with PA Auditor General Jack Wagner and Dr. Scanlon, through discussions with legislators, continue to question the inequity of this system on behalf of WCASD.    One will recall this past December when the WC board unanimously approved the hiring of PFM/Civic Research as a consultant for a STEB appeal, believing their market values were certified as higher than they actually are. We are confident that our legislative liaison will also take an active role in reinforcing the administration’s opposition and continue to inform and empower the community through legislative updates. 

Who/what is STEB? The State Tax Equalization Board is appointed by the Governor and approved by the Legislature for a term of four years. The STEB determines annually the “aggregate market value of taxable real property in each political subdivision and school district throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania”.  Market values are certified annually to the Department of Education and the respective school districts on or before July 1 of each year and are used by the Department of Education as one factor in a legislative formula for the distribution of  state subsidies to each school district.   Want more?  Visit http://www.steb.state.pa.us 

What does PA Auditor General Jack Wagner have to do with STEB?  The Department of Education, school districts and taxpayers noted significant discrepancies  between 2007 and 2008 market values. Wagner’s office was asked by members of the General Assembly to review the STEB’s process for annually calculating and certifying market values of taxable property. The audit resulted in  the following findings:

 1) The Revised 2008 Market Value Report was incorrect and could adversely affect the recently published 2009 report:  the “incorrect” 2008 market value report was  originally released in June 2009, with a revised  report issued in August, 2010 . However,  in October 2010, Wagner’s office suggested to the STEB that it consider conducting a complete review of that 2008 revised report to ensure accuracy prior to releasing the 2009 market value report.  The STEB Chairman found additional review unnecessary and went forward with the release of the 2009 market value report without completing Wagner’s suggested review. 

2)  STEB certified and published inaccurate 2008 market values due to lack of management oversight  and controls, i.e., human error. For much more on the STEB audit and findings, see  http://www.auditorgen.state.pa.us/Department/Press/WagnerFindsSignificantFlaws.html

Or better yet, come hear about STEB calculations, school funding formulas and “The Real Impact of the Proposed State Budget on Public Education” when the Auditor General visits Stetson Middle School on Monday, March 19.  The Bayard Rustin High School Brass Ensemble will introduce the event with a performance at 6:30 PM and the Auditor General will speak to the public at 7.  He will also take a few questions from the audience after his presentation, so you are encouraged to visit  http://www.auditorgen.state.pa.us  before the event to familiarize yourself with the duties and responsibilities of the “independent fiscal watchdog for Pennsylvania taxpayers”. 
    

Other audits of possible interest/reading enjoyment:                                                                  http://www.auditorgen.state.pa.us/Department/Press/WagnerAgainUrgesFixFlawedCharterSchoolFunding.html http://www.philly.com/philly/education/20120306_ap_pasenatorstargetschoolsuperintendentbuyouts.html

I close with a  piece of legislation absent from the legislative report,  but mentioned by an audience member during closing comments: SB 327 is a bill that would take the office of school board director out of the primary election, thus abolishing the need for party endorsement of that position.  A candidate wishing to run for the office of school board director would circulate nomination papers for signatures (the number needed would depend on the “class” of the district) and their name could appear on the ballot in November, regardless of party affiliation.  I hope you will agree that such a  bill is a critical first step in attempting to remove party politics, personal agendas and political aspirations from the elected office of school board director.  Please stay tuned on where and when to find out more about SB 327 and how you can help Pennsylvania join the 47 other states who have non-partisan school board elections.  

A personal note: March is Women's History Month and I find the theme for 2012 particularly  fitting:  Women's Education and Empowerment. 2012 is the 40th anniversary of Title IX of the Education Codes of the Higher Education Act Amendments. This legislation was passed in 1972 and enacted in 1977 and  prohibited gender discrimination by federally funded institutions. I was not blogging in February for Black History month, and must also acknowledge what would be the 100th birthday of Bayard Rustin on  March 17th.  Rustin is not simply a building or a "lights issue". Bayard Rustin was a West Chester native who devoted his life to the causes of civil rights,non-violence and acceptance of all lifestyles.  So while you're raising your glasses of green "cheer" on St. Patrick's Day, please raise one for Bayard, thanks. 

2/21 Property & Finance & Personnel Meetings

Budget cuts were reviewed, new financials were analyzed, the first draft of the PA State Budget was lamented, a PR firm was approved, and free flow of information between the board/administration and public was put at risk. Here are the details…

Community Budget Task Force Initiatives to be AdoptedThe following task force recommendations were discussed and approved unanimously to move forward for full board approval:
1. Technology: replace purchased software with open source or online applications, implement an automated time and attendance system, and eliminate the district web administrator position. This is projected to save the district $127k in the 2012-13 school year.
2. Advertising: an advertising policy will be developed and a broker contracted to facilitate the sale of advertising space in the district. This will include advertising on the district calendar, lunch menus, the district website home page, and within our school buildings in non-classroom areas. The plan is for student facing advertising to be indirect and include the areas of health, safety, education, and wellness, while adult facing advertising will be direct and sponsored message oriented. The goal is for this advertising not to infringe on the recognition of student achievement or on existing revenue sources of boosters and PTOs. The total expected savings for these activities in the 2012-13 school year is $59k.
3. Custodial/Cleaning Level Standards: reduce the cleaning staff at each of the high schools by 1 person. The cleaning standards at the high schools will be reduced to allow for each custodian to pick up a larger cleaning and maintenance area. Some rooms will now be cleaned thoroughly every other day with only trash removal and dry mopping occurring on a daily basis. The concern was raised that this could be a health/safety issue, especially in light of the recent Pertussis outbreak. Total expected savings for the elimination of these 3 positions is $192k in the 2012-13 school year.
4. Employee Service Vendor Relationships: review current healthcare costs and provide vendors access to market services to employees. The administration believes that by utilizing a healthcare consultant to review their current healthcare vendors/contracts, that savings of ~$25k can be identified in such areas as LTD, life insurance, and flexible spending account management. Additionally, they believe that by providing vendors with access to market products to employees, that the district can realize gains of ~$25k in revenues or decreased benefit costs.

Latest Financials
Kudos to Dot Krikorian for pushing for, and to Sean Carpenter and Suzanne Moore for implementing, a revision to the financial model that makes the numbers much more realistic. Historically the model would plug a tax increase that was necessary to close our budget gap; in the days of healthy financials and no Act 1, this worked fine, but in the current economic climate this approach no longer provides meaningful data. Therefore, the model has been revised to show our budget gap with different tax increase scenarios and for several years out. While I’m very happy to see the model revisions, the results are sobering. You can see the details on the WCASD website:
http://documents.wcasd.k12.pa.us/dsweb/Get/Document-282679/Budget%20Forecast%20Model%20February%202012.pdf

I've created a condensed summary, but I'm unable to copy it in here; I'd be happy to provide it to anyone who is interested. What the numbers show is that with no tax increases over the next 4 years, we will need to cut $24M from our budget if the cuts are sustainable (long term reductions that carry to future years), and $59M if they are not; this is a range of 12-30% of our budget. Even if we take the Act 1 Index for the next 4 years, and the Exceptions for years 2013-14 through 2015-16 (since we declined reserving them for the 2012-13 school year), we will need to cut an additional $9M of sustainable cuts or $23M of non-sustainable. AND, these estimates assume no salary increases for any personnel for the next 4 years, and do not factor in the cost increase risk that the Governor’s new method for education funding poses for public schools (see more about this below). I wonder if anyone is wishing they had reserved the exceptions for the 2012-13 school year now?

Impact of Governor’s First Draft 2012-13 Budget
The good news is that the 1st Draft of the PA State budget includes funding for WCASD that is approximately $1.2M higher than forecasted. However, this is not due to the generosity of our Governor but rather some very conservative planning by the district business office; this is not surprising given the scramble to balance our budget last year when the state funding numbers came in significantly lower than projected.

There are several pieces of bad news as well:
1. This funding is 3.2% lower than our 2011-12 budgeted funding and 8.6% lower than the funding we received for the 2007-08 school year for the categories of basic instruction, transportation, charter school tuition, accountability grants, and social security.
2. While we continue to fund charter schools in a manner that is completely inconsistent with their cost models and the Governor is looking to expand them in PA, the Governor has again chosen not to subsidize school districts for any charter school costs (this subsidy was removed last year). He has again removed the Accountability Block Grant which is used for costs such as full day kindergarten (he removed this last year as well but then replaced it after receiving pressure from legislators and constituents). Special Education funding has also remained flat for the 4th consecutive year.
3. The Governor’s budget includes suspension of capital project subsidies. Currently, if capital projects follow a prescribed methodology and provide the required documentation, they receive a portion of their capital project costs from the state. However, with this proposal current projects such as Westtown-Thornbury and Penn Wood renovations will only be funded if money “becomes available”, and state subsidy of all future elementary school renovations will be in jeopardy. It is estimated that this could cost WCASD $50k per school per year over a 20 year period, totaling $8M.
4. The proposed PA budget contains a new way of allocating funds to school districts. The basic education subsidy, transportation (public and non-public/charter) and social security payments have been combined into a single Student Achievement Education Block Grant. While funding for these costs had previously been formula driven based on actual costs, the combination of these items into a single block grant suggests that this will no longer be the case. It is the opinion of Business Director Dr. Suzanne Moore that the state has made this change in order to eliminate its share of risk for the expected future increases in these costs, and as a result this risk will be borne solely by the district/local taxpayers.

See the following articles if you’d like additional information on the state budget:
http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs043/1103584053062/archive/1109247780891.html
http://articles.philly.com/2012-02-15/news/31063504_1_school-districts-accountability-block-grants-public-education
http://lowermacungie.patch.com/articles/the-governor-fools-the-public-again

Firm Hired for Negotiations Related PR
On 2/8, those members of the board on the labor negotiations team interviewed 3 firms to handle future PR related to negotiations with the 3 labor unions. The decision was made to select The Communication Solution Group at a flat rate of $170/hour with no minimum monthly billing. It begs the question why our own internal Communications team cannot do this work. It is also worth mentioning that this is the same firm that did PR for the district in 2003 when we had our one and only strike. Same negotiator, same PR firm…let’s hope this is not a harbinger of what is to come.

Changes to Board Meeting Policies...when does promoting efficiencies become an obstacle to the free flow of important public information?
One new and two revised board policies were put to the committee for their first official reading (although in reality we had seen them at the last P&F but they were sent back for revisions). The revised policies deal with agenda setting and rules of order for board meeting, and do not appear to have any noteworthy changes. The new policy, however, Public Participants in Board Meetings, lays the groundwork for the systemic elimination of key information flow to the public.

Anyone who attends board and committee meetings on a regular basis knows that everything happens at the committee level; it’s where all the discussion takes place, where the direction of the vote becomes apparent, and where you get a sense for why the board members are for or against something. For as long as anyone can remember in WCASD, there has been an opportunity for the public to make comments and ask questions throughout the committee meeting as each agenda item is covered…which makes complete sense since votes occur after each item and since it’s counterproductive to revisit topics at the end of the meeting.

However this new policy includes language such as: “it is not meant to be a question and answer period”, “there will be a public comment period at the end of each committee meeting or work session on agenda items only”, “no participant may address or question individual Board members”, and “the presiding officer may request the assistance of law enforcement officers”. Excuse me? Aren’t these the same people who, just a few months ago, campaigned on promises of “transparency” and “involving all stakeholders”? Wasn’t the new Communications and Outreach Liaison position created to promote positive relations?

When questioned about this, responses from board members included:
1. We now have the new monthly board newsletter to communicate, as well as email. I read the newsletter, and I reached out to the appropriate board member on February 6th with comments and questions, and to date have not even received an acknowledgement that my email was received.
2. We have offered to attend PTO meetings, and are surprised that only 1 school has taken us up on our offer. Some board members did attend a Fern Hill PTO meeting; they told attendees that due to Sunshine Laws they were not allowed to answer any questions.
3. PSBA says we do not have to answer questions. It is interesting to me that the majority of these board members chose to skip the PSBA new board member training, yet are now quoting the organization when it suits their needs.
4. One board member went on for quite a while, and I can’t say I completely understood the point, but it was something along the lines of trusting the administration and by the time items get to the board they have already been fully vetted and it is not the time to start second guessing so we should be getting involved earlier in the process and with the administration, not the board. As I said, I’m not sure exactly what point was being made, but somehow I doubt Dr. Scanlon has time to have weekly sit downs with parents to apprise us of everything that is going on in the district and get our input.

Bottom line, I was left still not understanding exactly how the public is to interface with the board in order to get questions answered once this new policy goes into effect. I also got the distinct impression that some members of the board do not feel they should have to answer any questions.

To Sean Carpenter’s credit, he did have Dr. Scanlon add that “if the presiding officer determines that a topic needs time for comments, he or she will establish that time during the meeting”, and I do believe that he will try to stick to that and allow for dialogue in P&F. But this policy makes it so that no board member HAS TO allow this dialogue, and even if these members choose to interpret this policy loosely, who is to say that future board members will? Perhaps this is not an attempt to stifle communications but rather a battle weary group of people who are tired of having to explain themselves. I can understand that, they’ve taken a lot of heat. However…they wanted this position, in fact they all fought very hard to get there. So, if the meeting runs a little longer than they’d like, and if they have to listen to frustrated parents who are concerned about their children’s education, I’m afraid all I can say is this is the job you asked for.

This new policy will be up for comment at the February and March board meetings, so if you feel as I do that this is not the direction we want our district to go, show up and make your feelings known.

WCASD PUPIL SERVICES AND EDUCATION COMMITTEE APPROVE PHASE 1 TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS

On February 13^th, WCASD School Board Pupil Services and Education Committees held their monthly meeting. The phase 1 Budget Task Force II recommendations presented for Pupil Services and Education were unanimously approved at the committee level resulting in expense reductions of $396,400 and enhanced revenues of $303,225. A full vote by the Board will occur on Monday, February 27^th at 7:30. The phase 1 suggestions are summarized below:

Phase 1 Pupil Service BTF:

Reduce 1 Autistic Support Teacher $95,000

Re-evaluate all Speech Only from early intervention 7,000

Discontinue contract with COAD 53,000

Phase 1 Pupil Service Expense Reduction $155,000

Phase 1 Education Committee BTF:

Increase PE class size from 20-24 to 30 $99,400

Eliminate "academic level" language above level 2 142,000

Phase 1 Education Committee Expense Reduction $241,400

Implement Activity fee for Funded Activities/Sports $303,225

Total Phase 1 Education Expense/Revenue $544,625

Education and Pupil Services Phase 1 $699,625

PE classes at other districts in the area average 30, with some up to 40 or more, WCASD recommends increasing the average to 30 students. Increases in PE class may impact coaching, equipment costs, but provide flexibility for scheduling. The District will continue to offer all language courses, however, students taking level three courses and above will have to take the course at the honors level. Offering honors level language at level 3 and above will provide a greater challenge to students but those students not wanting to experience this level of academic rigor will not have a language option beyond level 2. District personnel will be able to sustain the instructional model without the CCIU (Chester County Intermediate Unit) autistic support teacher and no impact is anticipated. The expense cuts result in a reduction of 4.4 staff. It is anticipated staff reductions will be reached through attrition.

A three-tier activity fee will be implemented for funded programs at a rate of $25 for elementary, $50 for middle school and $75 for high school. This is a onetime annual fee for one or more activities with a maximum fee of $200 per family. Dana Seaman requested and Dr. Bertrando said he would review reinstating intramural programs at the middle schools that were previously discontinued. The activity fee will not serve to reverse the "no cut" policy instituted in 2011-2012. The fee will be charged after try-outs, no adjustments were made to hire additional coaches. Financial assistance will be provided for those unable to pay the activity fee. Mr. Carpenter suggested the "recommendation to charge a fee for unfunded activities" be eliminated. The education committee members were in agreement and this fee will not be initiated (unfunded activities have no supplemental contract whereas funded activities have a supplemental contract).

The first reading of 2012-2013 school year calendar was completed with a review of moving the 10/11/12 in-service day back a week or two to provide increased consecutive weeks of uninterrupted instruction in the early weeks of school, a good suggestion by Dr. Pimley. The second parent teacher conferences will be held midyear, in February, to provide adequate time for student improvement and progress monitoring before the end of the school year. Again, this was a great decision because many parents feel the spring conferences are too late in the year. There will be separate town hall style meetings to handle the transition from 5th to 6th grade. In keeping with WCASD policy, both Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur are days off in 2012. This is the first time since 2009 that both holidays fall on weekdays. Dr. Missett indicated she is meeting with the YMCA this week and will have a recommendation in March for the Before and After School Care Program recommendation.

The next committee meetings will be held on Tuesday, February 21 with Property and Finance convening at 6:30 p.m. followed by Personnel at 7:30 p.m.

Further information can be found:

http://home.wcasd.net/files/_ZOAbf_/0c94a95f96768f573745a49013852ec4/Final_Report_Dec_2011.pdf

Chester Upland Article Highlights Charter School Funding Issue

http://articles.philly.com/2012-02-06/news/31030424_1_charter-schools-special-education-cost-special-education/2

This article does a good job explaining one of the key inequities in the charter school funding formula related to Special Education. The funding formula does not take into account the type of special education needs the children attending charter schools have. So, while costs to address speech and language impairments are significantly lower than those for other disabilities such as
blindness, deafness, or autism, the amount of funding charters receive for children with any type of special education need is the same. Additionally, the per child rate that public schools must pay for district students attending charter schools is based upon an assumed % of students with special education needs, not an actual amount; if the district’s special education population exceeds that assumed %, their costs are higher, but this funding formula neglects and penalizes the district for this. This is demonstrative of the entire problem with the way charters are funded which is completely unrelated to their costs. How can this make sense when these schools are supposed to be non-profit?

I found this quote by Lawrence Jones, president of the PA Coalition for Public Charter Schools, very interesting. In response to the proposal for payment levels for charter special education students based upon the severity of disability, he said it could create "a second class of students" getting lower payments and lead to "potentially substandard treatment for some." Given the assumption that teachers would not be aware of how much money was being paid by each district for each student, what would the basis be for this “substandard treatment”. More importantly, how is this any different than the way the schools are already funded? Different districts pay different amounts for their students to attend THE SAME charter school since the funding is based on the home district’s average spending per student. So, if there is a fear of this second class mentality occurring, why is this not already a concern? And shouldn’t the administration of these schools be capable of ensuring this disparate treatment does not occur?

The truth is that charter schools like the way they are funded, because they have no responsibility to prove that they are using all funds received on students. While charters themselves are non-profit, the management companies some use are not, so there is ample opportunity for misappropriation and fraud. Just last month the former chief executive officer of a charter school in Northwest Philadelphia pleaded guilty to stealing more than $500,000 in taxpayer funds
intended for the school, and in total frauds of $861,000. Anyone who has spent any time looking at charter schools has heard the name Vahan Gureghian. Mr. Gureghian is a Philadelphia lawyer and multi-millionaire who owns a company called Gureghian's Charter School Management Inc. that manages the Chester Community Charter School’s (located in the Chester Upland School District) finances. His company owns the school buildings and leases them back to the school, and he collects a management fee of $5,000 per student! Where is the competition and market driven pricing there? While Chester Upland School district has been forced to cut staff and programs and is not even sure it will have enough money to finish the school year, there has been no evidence that the Chester Community Charter School has had to make any cuts. And while the charter school is public and subject to Right to Know laws since it receives taxpayer money, Mr. Gureghian's private, for-profit management company is not and so its finances are not open
for public scrutiny. Oh, and Mr.Gureghian was also the largest contributor to Governor Corbett’s campaign, and Governor Corbett is trying to expand charter school laws in PA….

I think there are great merits to the concept of charter schools. Some children simply do not
thrive in the traditional public school setting, and for them and their parents charter schools can be life saving. I also have no problem with the idea of charter schools providing competition in
order to push government run, bureaucratic public schools to perform better, and to act as champions for the development of best practices. Isn’t that what they were established to do? It is not the concept, it is how it has been operationalized that I take issue with. Should charter schools drain funds from their public school counterparts at a rate that these schools cannot survive? Should some be able to profit from taxpayer funded schools because the laws are not equipped to deal with the opportunities for fraud? Shouldn’t the taxpayer funds sent to these schools be tied to the money being spent to educate students there, especially since charter school testing results have lagged behind those of public schools? Isn’t it time that we as taxpayers start paying as much attention to how our money is being spent in these schools as we are to how they are spent in the public schools? In a time of cost cutting and the need to make every dollar spent count, I think the answer to that question is an unequivocal YES.