Infusing the spirit of collaboration

September Pupil Services Committee Meeting:
In attendance:  Committee Chair Dr. Maria Pimley, members Heidi Adsett, Maureen Snook, Sue Tiernan.  Also in attendance Board President Vince Murphy, Ed Coyle, Karen Miller, Linda Raileanu.

Director of Pupil Services, Dr. Ranieri delivers presentation on school-based ACCESS (medical assistance) program, discussing eligibility, staff roles, approved rates and annual revenue used.  Each year, the District allocates a certain amount in anticipation of medical assistance funding cuts, approximately $500,000 for school year 13/14. 

Both Mrs. Adsett and Dr. Pimley  ask questions pertaining to the use of the medical assistance allocation if/when District is not in need of it.  For example , there may be a year where medical assistance funding is adequately funded.   The District would  adjust, but Dr. Ranieri admits there is always a concern that funding would be cut the following year, and then we are “short”.  Both Mrs. Adsett and Dr. Pimley appear in agreement with Dr. Ranieri’s concern.

Mrs. Tiernan: Who cuts this medical assistance money?  The State.  The District is required (mandate) to provide services per a student’s  Individualized Education Program.  The District, in anticipation of yearly state funding cuts, allocates money to cover that mandate.

Ms. Raileanu wants to clarify that Medicaid is jointly funded, federal and state.   Dr. Ranieri does not dispute that, but notes her focus was on the state cuts because  state cuts have a direct impact on WCASD.  Ms. Raileanu is also curious about the  reasons parents provide when they do not use medical assistance benefits, wondering if some parents believe the “myth” that they may lose other services if they take advantage of those benefits.    Dr.  Ranieri  explains that the role of  the District is to inform families they are able to use those funds, not to suggest or require they use them.  Ultimately,  it is the family that decides whether or not to use medical assistance funding so she would not be able to provide the reasoning behind their choice. 

Mr. Coyle wonders why medical assistance is not automatically used, since a physician’s orders are needed for services.  Dr. Ranieri clarifies that they are targeting the educational component of assistance, not the medical.  Oversight of possible “redundant” or duplicate services comes from Medicaid, not the District.

Public comment from parent who addresses Ms. Raileanu’s “myth” of medical assistance usage, stating she is aware of families who do not use their medical assistance out of concern they will lose services from the District.

 September Education Committee Meeting:

 In attendance:  Committee Chair Heidi Adsett, members Dr. Maria Pimley, Maureen Snook, Sue Tiernan.  Also in attendance Board President Vince Murphy, Ed Coyle, Karen Miller, Linda Raileanu.

Director of Elementary Education, Dr. Missett discusses the impact of decreasing  library and front office assistants.  One will recall  this expense saving measure came from the findings of the 2009 Budget Task Force and saved approximately $300,000.  Dr. Missett provides  two perspectives of impact, one from library assistant point of view and one from office assistant point of view.

 Library Assistant POV

1.      Loss of materials – with children checking out their own books, there has been some increase in lost materials.  Costs being assessed.
2.      Service to students – during librarian’s lesson planning time, there is no aide to help students
3.      Circulation – overall increase of 10%, although one school showed a decrease of 30%. Change was dependent on volunteer systems in place and there will be attempt to communicate best practices  between schools.

Mrs. Adsett asks if District has a ‘baseline” number of missing books prior to implementation of Budget Task Force findings.  She notes that  “books go missing” and  questions if the increase in lost materials can definitely be attributed to the decrease in library assistants. Dr. Missett will check if baseline number is available.

Office Assistant POV
1.      DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills) scores are now entered by reading staff
2.       Building Use forms are now processed by custodians
3.      Field trip procedures shifted to other staff

Dr. Missett states that parent volunteers are not utilized in offices due to concerns of confidentiality.  Schools have an “all hands on deck “policy in front offices:  substitute teachers, support staff, etc. are asked to help with front office duties when/if available.  

Dr. Pimley asks if there has been communication between elementary schools to share ideas.  Yes, and that will be ongoing.

Director of Curriculum and Instruction, Dr. Fraser discussed implementation of Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) in District.  A PLC is a collaborative group of teachers placing explicit focus on student learning. Groups meet regularly for approximately one hour to define/assess the following:

1.      What are students learning? (development of essential learning targets)

2.      How do we know they are learning? (assessment)
3.      How do we respond to difficulty?  (support)
4.      How do we respond to mastery? (enrichment)

 Example:  If a student receives a passing grade on a test,  but has not hit all of the  identified “essential learning targets”, have they truly “mastered” the subject? If not, what is our collaborative response to their struggle?  And if a student consistently overshoots defined essential learning targets, what is our collaborative response to their success?   Approximately 100 WCASD staff took part in two day training through Solution Tree.   A PLC Steering Committee, consisting of administrators and content specialists,  will help to implement protocols for smaller collaborative groups of teachers.

Why PLC?  Research shows the system works and a slew of national professional organizations endorse it.  According to Dr. Fraser, PLCs will enhance student learning by distributing District leadership and fully utilizing our internal expertise.  

Dr. Pimley questions the difference between our current system and PLCs?  Dr. Fraser states that PLCs offer a holistic approach to learning.  He adds that, at present, we basically leave learning “to chance” .  The PLC approach is systemic – everything fits  into a cohesive process and is highly dependent on the  boundless “collective wisdom” of our WCASD staff. 

Mrs. Tiernan questions how the District is addressing the challenge of scheduling “regular” meetings for staff to share their collective wisdom?  Dr. Fraser admits that is a big logistical challenge.

Mrs. Snook wonders how teachers are “taking this” because it appears to add to their responsibilities.  Dr. Fraser asserts that good teachers naturally collaborate to enhance student learning and he does not sense any resistance.

Questions from public:

What do the  smaller collaborative teacher groups look like at building level?  
Answer: At the elementary level, teachers would meet based on grade-level,  middle and high would group according to grade and content area.

Is this just another “cycle “of education reform where everyone jumps on the bandwagon  (or doesn’t) ? 

Answer: No, this is a way of doing your job and it will not go away.  Realistically there will always  be individuals who are resistant to “new” ideas, but the advent of PLCs enhance student learning, which is the goal of all WCASD staff.

Deb Fell, President of the WCAEA, attests to the fact that this has been and continues to be a real collaborative effort and a “deliberately slow process”.    

Dr. Pimley questions how the concept of the PLC will be communicated to staff, parents, etc.  A communication plan is in place.  She questions how we can find out more about PLCs and Dr. Fraser encourages all to visit www.allthingsplc.com, which I did.

Life-long educator Richard DuFour  introduced the PLC concept in 1998 (DuFour’s system is now marketed through Solution Tree, the company that supplied WCASD training).

“It (PLC) is not a program to be purchased; it is a process to be pursued but never quite perfected.  It is not an appendage to existing structures and cultures: it profoundly impacts structure and culture”.  In addition, “It does not demand that educators work harder at what they traditionally have done; it calls upon all educators – every teacher, counselor, principal, central office staff member, and superintendent – to redefine their roles and responsibilities and do differently.”

From Richard DuFour & Robert Marzano, Leaders of Learning: How District, School and Classroom Leaders Improve Student Achievement, 2011 Solution Tree Press, Bloomington IN, page 22.

 “A process to be pursued but never quite perfected”.  Educators “redefining” their roles.   PLCs are not a quick fix or fad to be implemented, but rather a culture change infusing the District,  perpetually fueled by the collective wisdom of our educators .   Philosophically, this is beautiful stuff,  although one does share Mrs. Tiernan’s concerns  about the logistics of “regular” collaborative meetings.   Collaborative strategy-sharing sessions are time-consuming and time is a precious resource in a teaching day.

One also recalls Dr. Pimley’s concern about communicating the concept of PLCs throughout the District.  The District does an excellent job communicating information, but how does one communicate  a culture change and infuse District parents with the collaborative spirit of the PLC?  There is no doubt that PLCs enhance student learning.   However, many parents and students share a  culture of achievement – simply defined and measureable achievement.  As this dynamic PLC  process evolves, we suspect the District will celebrate its success and communicate the  positive impact of PLCs on student achievement.  While we await our own, the PLC website offers  numerous school success stories.   

Admittedly a digression, but also of note on PLC website:  Solution Tree offers a School Board Field Book, authored by Mark Van Clay and Perry Solwedel.   The authors state,

“The board, the superintendent, and union leadership must establish a productive and professional three-way partnership for the school district to continuously improve. . . . When all three parties aren’t working together smoothly, too much time will be spent trying to resolve their differences and not enough will be spent working together to achieve the school district’s strategic goals.” 

The accompanying School Board Field Book Study Guide asks the Board to “reflect on your three-way partnership.”  Even the best of us can benefit from collaborative reflection at times, yes?  No mention by Dr. Fraser whether this Solution Tree training offering will be utilized.

Dr. Fraser speaks briefly on the District’s teacher induction plan for new hires, consisting of ongoing support and mentoring programs.

Director of Secondary Education, Dr. Bertrando addresses the PA teacher evaluation system.   This evaluation system was initially proposed in Representative Ryan Aument's  (R-Lancaster) House Bill 1980 (local co-sponsors Representatives Truitt and Killion), is based on Charlotte Danielson's Framework for Teaching and derives funding through the Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) project funded  by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

A teacher’s final rating would be determined through an evaluation process based on 50 percent traditional classroom observation and 50 percent student achievement. For teachers, the 50 percent that relies on objective measures will comprise 15 percent building-wide student performance data including promotion and attendance rates, for example; 15 percent on data from the performance of the individual teacher's students; and the remainder will be state-approved locally chosen measures.  The individual teacher performance measures can include such things as classroom activities, tests, quizzes, projects, student portfolios and standardized test scores.

The proposal has drawn widespread support from teachers unions and school boards alike and will take effect in 2013-14 for teachers and in 2014-15 (proposed) for principals. http://news.yahoo.com/pennsylvania-department-education-selects-teachscapes-framework-teaching-proficiency-175200116.html

WCASD will pilot the teacher evaluation system  this year in the following schools: Henderson, Peirce, Penn Wood and Glen Acres.   Dr. Bertrando explains the two-fold benefit of participating in the pilot program:  the District receives free training and is afforded the opportunity to provide input to the PA Department of Education.

Next, Dr. Bertrando  explains the concept of Ascension Leaders, the District’s administrator induction plan.   When an administrator retires, the District must deal not only with filling the vacancy, but also with the loss of experience in the District.  According to Dr. Bertrando, an  Ascension Leader is one  who possesses the core belief system and competencies to ascend to broader leadership roles within the organization in a 3-5 year span.  The Ascension Leader works through a series of online modules, at their own pace, then meets at regular intervals with their supervisor to discuss progress.

Public question:  is this program only for new administrators?   “Experienced” administrators could  also benefit from such a program.  True, and the program is an option for current administrators and Dr. Bertrando states that some have already expressed an interest in participating.

Dr. Bertrando provided examples of online training  modules, which cover topics such as  leadership, communication, discipline,  etc.  In the words of Dr. Bertrando, the District is looking for “Super Man and Wonder Woman”.   All others need not apply?

And speaking of superheroes,  West Chester VOTE  lost one of our own, Jim Smith,  on September 9^th.  As if Jim had not served public education enough, he joined VOTE’s "Write Choice" campaign in the summer of 2011, telling all involved he had “one last fight for public education” left in him. Jim’s energy,  passion and willingness to share his expertise and wisdom was endless.  Jim Smith remains an integral part of the mission of WC VOTE and his legacy will continue to inspire our work.   To Jim’s family, friends and students  – may your memories of a life lived selflessly in service to our youth -  to our future – continue to comfort you as you grieve this tremendous loss. 

Thank you, Jim Smith – it was a privilege to have known you. 

 

 

 

What do tax reform and strike-free education have in common?

They needed to break out some extra folding chairs for the crowd at August WCASD Board meeting.   And while one anticipated hearing more of the same since negotiations began, i.e.,  the  aggressive and endless rhetoric of blame concerning  “what the union wants” vs.  “what the Board is offering”,  it was an uncharacteristically civil and thankfully short evening. 

 

Public comment on agenda items:

Just one, concerning a special education settlement.  An admittedly nervous parent spoke bravely of her frustration each time she sees a special education settlement on the agenda, stating that money spent for lawyers is money NOT spent on a student.  Thanks for your courage.

 

Committee reports:

Education Chair Mrs. Adsett gives us a recap of Education meeting, thanking the now-vacationing Dr. Pimley for filling in for her while she was enjoying  a much needed vacation with her family. 

 

In Dr. Pimley’s absence, Mrs. Tiernan covers Pupil Services. Items approved by Board: Special Education settlement and service agreement with PTS, a physical therapy provider already working with District. (Education/Pupil Services summary: http://westchestervote.blogspot.com/2012/08/if-nothing-else-lesson-in-acronyms.html )

 

Property and Finance – among items approved, Policy DFF, Grants from External Sources and Policy KDC, Flyer Distribution.   

(P & F summary: http://westchestervote.blogspot.com/2012/08/happy-days-are-here-again.html)

Other Reports:

Mr. Coyle/Intermediate Unit – there was no IU Board meeting in August

Mrs. Tiernan/Charter & Alternative – she has a couple of visits lined up for September

 Ms. Raileanu/Outreach – Board outreach season is officially open in September.  We are reminded to let the Board know of PTO and other school events and they will do their best to attend.

 Ms. Miller/Personnel – new hires were welcomed and hiring will continue as needed. 

Listing of hires: http://home.wcasd.net/files/_fbI67_/8afa2add6a88dbc73745a49013852ec4/August_27_2012_Board_Packet_for_Website.pdf

 Mr. Murphy gives a brief update on negotiations.  District Negotiations team and West Chester Area Education Association will meet again on  8/29.

 Mrs. Snook/Legislative –informs us that the PA General Assembly reconvenes on 9/24.  The horrors of state pension system and its impact on district are once again noted and while there are numerous proposals out there, we are reminded that the Board favors Representative Warren Kampf’s House Bill 2454 .  (FYI, local co-sponsors of Kampf’s  House Bill 2453, addressing state employees, and HB 2454, addressing school district employees: Representatives Truitt, Barrar, Killion and Ross)

 Mrs. Snook also reports on the first official meeting of the House Select Committee on Property Tax Reform, held on August 20.  This Committee was established through the passage of Representative Tom Quigley’s (R-Montgomery) House Resolution 774.   The Committee heard testimony from the prime sponsors of the following property tax proposals:

•House Bill 2230, sponsored by Rep. Seth Grove (R-York, local co-sponsor Steve Barrar), would allow school districts to reduce or eliminate property taxes and replace them with a 1% increase in the county sales tax, with voter approval. The measure would also allow local governments to levy an income tax to reduce millage rates by at least 30%. The bill was voted out of the House Finance Committee and sent to the House floor for consideration. http://www.pahousegop.com/NewsItem.aspx?NewsID=15065

• House Bill 2300, sponsored by Rep. David Maloney (R-Berks), would amend the Pennsylvania Constitution to allow principal places of residence to be completely excluded from property taxation. Such a constitutional change requires passage in two consecutive sessions and then the approval of voters. The measure was unanimously passed by the House and sent to the Senate for consideration.

• Senate Bill 1400 , sponsored by Sen. David Argall (R-Schuylkill, local co-sponsor Ted Erickson), would eliminate property taxes and replace those funds with revenue generated through an increase in the state personal income tax and an expansion of the state sales tax. The proposal has been referred to the Senate Finance Committee. http://www.pahousegop.com/NewsItem.aspx?NewsID=15067

Per Representative Quigley’s resolution,  the Committee meets again in September to continue to study these tax proposals and will report its findings to the House by a deadline of November 30.  At least one member of the Select Committee does not hold out much hope for true reform.  State Representative Nick Micozzie (R-Montgomery) served on a property tax reform committee nearly 12 years ago.  At that time the committee crafted a report to reform school property taxes, yet all attempts at gaining support for legislation failed.  He is not optimistic this time will be any different, stating:   “I think we’re going to spin our wheels a lot of times, like I have done over the years.” http://emmaus.patch.com/articles/lawmakers-tread-water-on-property-tax-reform

Mrs. Snook  comments on the Tax Reform Committee, stating that “one of the legislators”  said something to the effect that the “only way to get tax control is to control spending”. She continues, speaking of the need to “get rid of mandates” and to remember that “we represent the taxpayers, not special interest groups”.   Intriguing words, but Mrs. Snook’s?  Alas, no - they were simply a continuation of the legislator’s quote referenced by Mrs. Snook.

 That legislator is first-term State Representative Justin Simmons (R- Lehigh/Northampton), a member of the House Select Committee on Property Tax Reform, who stated:

 “The only way you are ever going to get any tax under control is to control spending. We do know there are state mandates we can help our school districts with by getting rid of them. We need to keep in mind that each of us represents the taxpayers and not a special interest group.”

http://www.pahousegop.com/NewsItem.aspx?NewsID=15067

So just who is  this  thoughtful and bold young Republican? Before being elected to service, Mr. Simmons interned for Congressman Pat Toomey and also served as a legislative aide for Senators Rob Wonderling and Bob Mensch.  In addition, Mr. Simmons serves on the House Education Committee, and is a  proponent of  the “Strike Free Education Pact”, a movement in support of House Bill 1369 (local co-sponsors: Representatives Barrar, Killion, Truitt)  and House Bill 1640 (local co-sponsors: Representatives Barrar, Truitt), which actually proposes a “strike-free” amendment to the PA Constitution. See Representative Simmons’ Strike Free Petition Packet at http://repsimmons.com/strikefreepetition.aspx . 

Mrs. Snook ends on a cheery note which was clearly her own.  She,  along with Mrs. Tiernan,  attended an event to welcome new District hires, recounting it was a “heartening” experience to see many new and optimistic faces ready to begin the school year. 

 Public comment on non-agenda items:

Comment from local realtor/former Board member Mr. Davison: West Chester is “looking healthy” financially and he “applauds” Business Director Dr. Suzanne Moore and all those responsible for getting us there. 

Two-part question from East Bradford taxpayer/former Board member Mr. Smith:  What are bus costs per student and what is the status of superintendent and Act 93 contracts (principals/administrators) that expired July 1?   No public answer.

A West Goshen resident speaks on behalf of a  10^th grade exchange student from Cologne Germany, who  is unable to attend East High School this year due to “technical” issues. Housed under the category of “Anomalous Students” is WCASD Board Policy JQKA/Foreign Exchange Students, which states  “Application for admission of an exchange student shall be received by July 1”.  Apparently the German student had  met all requirements for admission by July 1,  except for the fact that she had not secured a host family until last week.   Speaker is asking the Board to accept the student regardless,  asserting  it will be “win, win, win” situation: a win for the German student, a win for East students who will benefit from the cultural exchange,  and a win for the Board, who will show they have made a “reasonable decision” in the matter. The Board is mute, but Dr. Scanlon addresses the  issue: in order to accept student, Board would have to “waive” policy.  The earliest date the Board could vote to waive the policy would be at the full Board meeting on September 24 - too late for admission.    The superintendent tells those in attendance that he has been making phone calls to other agencies, including one in Michigan, in order to find placement for the student for this school year.  The timing is indeed unfortunate and the District looks forward to welcoming the student next year -  auf Wiedersehen!

 

 

Happy Days Are Here Again...?

 All board members were in attendance at the 8/20 P&F Meeting with the exception of Heidi Adsett.  The largest portion of the meeting was spent discussing the financials which had not been covered in several months.  I was expecting someone to break out the champagne with all the good news that Dr. Moore was delivering, at least for the past year and perhaps the upcoming.

While the 2011-12 numbers have not gone through their final audit, they are not expected to change much, if at all.  Highlights of how we ended this past school year compared to what was projected in April include:

• Revenue was $1.7M higher than projected due to
• Earned Income Tax $700k higher, most likely due to a new regulation requiring all employers to withhold EIT for their employees (whereas before many people were expected to pay quarterly estimated taxes but may not have been--could be a timing thing)
• Transfer Tax $750k higher than projected due to home sales being double what they were a year ago which is great news
• Delinquent Taxes were $400k higher than projected but this is likely at least partially a reflection of timing and an offsetting reduction could be seen in 2012/13
• State Transportation Subsidy $440k higher due to a prior reporting error
• This ~$2.3M positive variance was offset by $300k lower than projected federal subsidies, $200k lower PSERS/FICA subsidies due to lower salary and associated expenses, and $150k lower current RE tax revenue
• Expenses were $4.6M lower than projected due primarily to
• $1M benefits savings due to realized gains from self insurance
• Lower salary-related costs including $800k teacher salary-related savings (Regular Salary, Severance, Extra Duty, Sabbatical), $200k technical salary, $250k crafts/trades salary, $600k associated FICA/Retirement
• $1M utility savings 
• $200k maintenance projects

For the 2012/13 school year, expenses are currently projected to be ~$700k lower than budget primarily due to $782k lower projected benefit costs based upon historical results, $199k lower projected sabbatical payments, and $322k lower expected charter and other alternative ed tuitions; these positive projections are offset by $673k projected higher special ed costs.  There is an additional $2.7M in reduced debt service cost due to bond refinancing, and this has been reserved in a capital fund to be used for the elementary school renovations.  2012/13 revenues are also projected to be ~$500k better due to the final State Basic Education subsidy being higher than originally proposed by Governor Corbett. 

As a result of more favorable 11/12 and 12/13 years, the 13/14 budget is looking better as well, but the Business Office still needs to evaluate what savings are one time and which are sustainable before a more definitive picture of 13/14 can be presented.  Right now we are projecting a $5.4M deficit vs. the $9.8M deficit shown back in April, a $4.4M improvement.  The forecast model currently shows use of $4.9M from the fund balance to offset the majority of this deficit, but it is unlikely we will utilize that much of our fund balance given the significant shortfalls currently expected for the 3 following years (between $12M and $14M).  We can expect these numbers to evolve over the next several months, at which time some parameters will likely be set for how much can realistically be taken from the fund balance, what types of cuts will need to be made, and whether a tax increase will be needed for next year.

Next Facilities Director Kevin Campbell gave an informative presentation showing how our 4 major utility costs (electric, natural gas/oil, water, & sewer) have trended over the last 5 years.  In aggregate we have experienced a total 5 year decrease in utility costs of $1.5M/34%.  The most significant contributor to this was electric which was reduced by 39%/$1.2M; natural gas/oil showed a 36% cost decrease of $389k, and these 2 cost reductions were offset slightly by cost increases for water (up 8%/$19k) and sewer (up 27%/$45k).  The major contributors for each cost change are as follows:

• Electric
• deregulation of electrical supply, after which WCASD participated in alternative purchase processes such as partnering with Chester County as part of a consortium, utilizing the services of an energy broker, and negotiating rates on our own
• conservation efforts adopted at all schools
• participation in the Demand Response Program in which the district agrees to shut down power due to electrical grid demand (only required 3 times over the last 3 years)
• Natural Gas/Oil
• all time low costs for natural gas and resulting discontinuation of heating fuel oil
• conservation efforts adopted at all schools
• Water:  all water is provided by Aqua PA and they have received modest increases over the last 5 years
• Sewer:  the Westtown Sewer Authority revised its rate structure for schools which nearly doubled our costs; it is at times like these that I lament being a Westtown Township resident as it seems our township continues to be the most difficult for the school district to work with.

Factors that could impact these costs going forward include:

•  Electric
• we are starting to see an increase in rates and our current pricing is only effective through 1/13
• the installation of a/c at Penn Wood and Westtown-Thornbury will result in increased costs
• Demand Response Program payments have some potential upside
• positive impact from shale production
• Natural Gas/Oil
• natural gas prices are rising, however production from shale should help keep them contained
• we had an extremely mild winter in 2011/12 which cannot be counted upon going forward
• additional square footage due to the Penn Wood and Westtown-Thornbury renovations will result in higher costs
• Water
• Aqua PA is now working to persuade the Public Utilities Commission to increase their rates as much as 20%
• WCASD will develop and implement a water conservation awareness program
• Sewer
• as part of its renovation process, W-T will be moving to public sewer which will increase our costs
• the district will work with Westtown Township to see if they can revise our rates somewhat.

The next topic was the status of contract negotiations with School Media, the vendor chosen to facilitate the purchase of in-school advertising.  It seems several issues have brought finalization of this contract to a standstill:

1. while WCASD can reject prospective ads for content, School Media will not allow us to be involved in where the ads are placed (within the parameters of predetermined spaces at each school)
2. School Media insists on a 3 year contract as well as the stipulation that we will not contract with any other broker or advertiser for one year following the contract expiration, which effectively ties us to them for 4 years (even if they default on the contract); however, they do not guarantee to provide us a single acceptable advertisement, so we could spend 4 years with no advertising revenues and no alternatives; furthermore, they want agreement that any legal action will be remedied in Minnesota which could be a large financial risk to the district
3. School Media will not provide a fee schedule for ads we accept, but will also not allow us to reject ads if their associated revenue is not sufficient

It appears this deal is dead unless School Media agrees to make some concessions, which they are not currently indicating they are prepared to do.  I agree with the board's decision to not move forward with the contract as it stands.  My only concern is that no other vendors are being considered at this time (since this is a new field) and the district will need to find a way to make up the shortage this lack of revenue will create in our budget (advertising was projected to generate between $200-$400k by the 15/16 school year).

Mr. Carpenter chose to discuss the second readings of new Policy DFF Grants from External Sources and revised Policy KDC Flyer Distribution jointly, although for what reason I'm uncertain since the only thing these 2 have in common is the large number of objections that have been raised against them. Perhaps he just wanted to get past them quickly.  I planned to ask (as I have on several occasions) why the policy states that grants should not impact the general fund budget (expenses) rather than focusing on total impact to the general fund (operating results), but frankly I did not have the energy to ask again knowing I would not get a straight answer.  As if almost reading my mind, Mr. Carpenter did clarify that these stipulations would be used for prioritizing rather than as firm requirements, however that made the summer's rejection of the the Keystone to Opportunity Grant that much more confusing since there was nothing else for that grant to be "prioritized" against.  Be that as it may, I believe we've made our point on this subject and will have to abandon any hope for a true explanation from the board.

Regarding the flyering policy, however, I was not feeling quite so acquiescent. The original intent of this policy was to outline how schools would handle requested dissemination of information that benefits students (such as non-district sports clubs). The Board has attempted to amend the policy to cover the flyering of cars since, let's be honest, this policy is being changed because some board members were displeased that West Chester VOTE did this during the last election. But they're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. If you read the "Purpose" section of the policy, it states that any non-school organizations "seeking to have students participate in or be informed of the opportunity to participate in non-school-sponsored activities shall be governed by this policy". When WCV put flyers on cars we were not seeking to inform STUDENTS of anything, nor were we trying to make them aware of the opportunity to participate in any sort of activity. The policy says nothing about the flyering of personal automobiles.

There are other things that trouble me about this policy as well. How is it that campaign materials are listed as "prohibited materials" yet political organizations can rent district facilities and presumably distribute campaign materials on school grounds at the time? And why is there nothing about religious materials being "prohibited"? Could it be because an after-school “Bible Study” program run by a controversial fundamentalist group has rented space at one of our elementary schools and sent flyers home to recruit student participants?  One can only assume that the district was forced to allow this under the directives of the First Amendment.

People need to understand that information is getting out in our schools regardless of this policy, and some of it might be objectionable to some people. Although groups must add a disclaimer that they are not endorsed by the district, I believe that by virtue of the fact that a school sends something home there is an implied belief in the safety of what our children are being exposed to...but who gets to decide what is safe? My points are these: 1)the school cannot always control what information our kids get and 2)free speech allows the dissemination of information that everyone may not always agree with, but unless the information is so offensive as to be universally objectionable to all, why should the board get to decide what is and is not acceptable?
Other items discussed included:

1. demolition of a structure situated on a parcel of land on West Boot Road that was obtained to hold a retention basin to handle storm water runoff from Mary C. Howse Elementary
2. an arrangement for WCASD to obtain 10 hours/week on West Chester University's cable TV channel on Monday nights from 5-10pm and on Friday afternoons from 12-5pm (it was not clear exactly what the district intends to air but perhaps due to the Monday night timing we could see board meetings broadcast in the future)
3. second reading of new Policy DJF Food and Beverage Expenditure Guidelines which outlines the use of school district funds for food and beverage expenses
4. first reading of new policy DFAD Reverse Appeals which establishes procedures for the district to apply for reverse appeals on properties that are deemed to be under-assessed based upon recent sales prices, to insure that the tax burden is equitably distributed.

At the conclusion of the meeting the floor was opened for any "other business" comments or questions.  Two residents spoke:

1. One resident brought the Negotiations Update newsletter he received and said that he took issue with the district spending tax money on something that he considered to be highly politicized and one sided.  Mr. Carpenter said that he would speak to the Negotiations Team and get back to him.  This response seemed somewhat strange, given he, Mr. Murphy, and Ms. Miller were all present and are the board members who sit on the Negotiations Team...who exactly is he going to talk to and what is he looking for them to tell him in order to respond to this gentleman?
2. Another resident questioned the student/teacher ratios in the forecasting models as they didn't seem consistent with current class size policy, and was told that those he referred to were not used in the actual calculations of the model.  He then stated that he believes WCASD has an excessive number of resources for our less than 12,000 students and that he would like the administration to perform a study, I assume to see how we compare to other PA districts in regard to facilities vs. headcount.  Mr. Carpenter appeared to agree that this could be done. 

This gentleman's comments caught my attention due to other things I have heard him say in the past.  My first exposure to him was when the Community Budget Task Force findings were presented last December and he spoke for the Elementary Class Size Committee.  He appeared to fully support the increase of class size maximums by 3 students (although WCASD has the 3rd highest class sizes in Chester County), as well as other potential cost savings options outlined in the report such as "asking new students to attend another school if it would otherwise result in the need for another class, waiving the class size maximum if space allowed for another student and there was an experienced teacher willing to take on the extra work, and offering students who live close to an elementary school boundary the chance to volunteer to change schools if that would make a difference".   I did not attend the August Pupil Services/Education Committee meeting, but apparently at that time he stated that "a district that performs average at best" should not be spending so much money and I can only assume he thinks a good way to cut costs would be to increase class size.  Had I been there I would have taken issue with that statement:  WCASD ranks 5th out of the 12 Chester County districts in terms of PSSA scores and 35th in the state out of 500, all for the lowest millage in Chester County--I'd call that a pretty good value for your money...but that's just me. 

If nothing else, a lesson in acronyms

Combined Pupil Services & Education Committee Meetings, August 13:

In attendance: Board President Vince Murphy, Pupil Services Chair Dr. Maria Pimley and Pupil Services/Education Committee members Mrs. Snook and Mrs. Tiernan. Personnel Committee Chair Ms. Miller was also in attendance.   In the absence of Education Chair Mrs. Adsett, Dr. Pimley  rose to the task  of providing  professional and time-efficient leadership of both meetings. 

Pupil Services meeting begins with summary of Special Education ESY (extended school year) program by WCASD Special Education supervisors Mrs. Shacklady-White and Mrs. Phifer. The ESY program services 50-60 students per year and the accomplishments of our students in this program, along with the dedication of District staff were highlighted.  Two-fold question from Mrs. Snook:  How many full-time teachers are utilized in this program and how are “benchmarks” met?  Answer: 7 at elementary level, 8 at middle and 4 at high. ESY program is not about “benchmarks” – it is a “maintenance of skills” program for our students.   

Meeting continues with a  brief  Gifted and ELL ( English Language Learner) Curriculum Alignment presentation by Gifted  K-8/ELL  Program Supervisor Mrs. Verbovsky.  She reports  WCASD administration and staff are “working on” curriculum alignment for common core standards/Keystone exams.  Mrs. Verbovsky has received training from WIDA (World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment) to aid in her supervision of curriculum alignment in district. 

 Education Committee Meeting:
Assistant Superintendent/Director of Secondary Education Dr. Bertrando provides update on PA Common Core Standards/Keystone exams, topics most recently discussed at May’s Education Committee meeting.  For refresher on PA common core standards, visit http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/current_initiatives/19720/common_core_state_standards/792440

As in May, we hear from Supervisor of Mathematics, Mr. Kerr, who is joined by Supervisor of English Language Arts (ELA) Mrs. Elliott.  Dr. Bertrando introduces both administrators  as “thought leaders”, not only in the WCASD, but also on a state level, explaining that Mr. Kerr and Mrs. Elliott  have spent much time in Harrisburg during the past months, discussing implications of common core/Keystone exams  with their peers on a state level.  Apparently, Mrs. Elliott is also an educational  “thought leader” on a national level and we are fortunate to have her and Mr. Kerr in our district.   Both administrators  provide summaries and a  “Common Core Standards Fact Sheet” was distributed  as well as  Keystone Exams timeline (http://static.pdesas.org/Content/Documents/2012_Assessment_Transition_PowerPoint_v2.pdf).

Astute public comment questions Keystone timeline and wonders why the state is not recommending that non-11th grade students, who have completed Algebra 1 and Biology, take the Keystone Exam sooner instead of waiting until 11th grade.   For example, this year's sophomore class will have an entire year of no Biology and most  will have  3- 4 years of no Algebra 1.  In addition, there are current 8th grade students who took Algebra 1 in 2011-2012 who will not  have that particular Keystone exam until their junior year. Administration agreed this is certainly something the District will need to take into consideration in preparing our students for these tests.

For the sake of comparison, those in attendance were shown examples of PSSA and Keystone exam questions in both English Language Arts and Math.   Most noted there was more reading involved in the Keystone questions, both ELA and Math.  Dr. Pimley, while she appreciated the need to increase  “rigor”, questioned how we get a “bell curve” with the Keystone exams: will  there be questions that “99% of kids” can answer?  Interesting question,  and no one really had a definitive answer for her.

On August 15, Andrew Porter, Dean of Graduate School of Education at University of PA was on NPR (National Public Radio), addressing the question, “Why do we keep re-inventing education?” (http://whyy.org/cms/radiotimes/2012/08/15/the-common-core-standards-for-public-education/).  Porter feels that the United States tries something new in education every 10 years or so and is uncertain if we ever really give any strategy enough time to fully develop.  Interestingly, he spoke of common core standards as a “crazy idea” for the United States, commenting that the US Department of Education basically “bribed” states into adopting common core standards through Race To The Top (RTTT) funding.  He is surprised there has not been more public outcry on this “state’s rights” issue, and jokes with his interviewer that perhaps there will be after we begin to take the tests.

Porter’s professional opinion as to whether the common core standards are truly  “ratcheted up toward higher order thinking’’:  the math common core standards involve “about the same” higher order thinking as the average current state standards, whereas ELA common core standards are “a little more” higher order thinking than average current standards.   He is asked: “Are they too tough? " While Porter never directly answers this question, he laughingly states  he is “sure” that common core standards will “not be implemented in a way that is too tough”.    

So what exactly does common core  “implementation” look like in WCASD?  In contrast to Porter’s above remark, WCASD appears to continue to unveil quite a “tough” implementation  strategy. In the past months, we recall that WCASD has updated two textbooks to better align with common core standards.  At present,  district-wide committees are being formed, in both ELA and Math, to evaluate current resources and revise District curriculum to align with common core standards.  Committees will consist of  K-12 representatives, building principals, instructional coaches, ELL, Gifted and Special Education staff. In addition, all WCASD teaching staff will receive training through utilization of in-service days.  Keep in mind that ALL of this “implementation” is being accomplished by the WCASD staff during a “normal” school year.  We are grateful to all involved for ensuring our students are well prepared for this major educational “reinvention”.

Activity Fee Update -  communications have been distributed electronically, through newsletters, building principals, etc., so everyone participating in District activities should have Activity Fee information.  Some activities have started and payments are already being received.  Public comment asking for clarification:  if payment is not received by deadline,  District will contact family of student to assess reason, and not simply ban student from activity, true?  True, and if there is an  issue, family will be encouraged to apply for scholarship (the fund is now nearly $2000).  Follow up question:  if payment is late,  is  the coach the person who would contact family for payment?  No, responsibility would fall to school principal. Member of public remarks that is a lot to ask of principals who already have quite a lot of other responsibilities.   Duly noted.

Question from public:  realizing and respecting the great amount of work the District and Community task force put into the adoption of pay-to-play system, is it “too late to stop”?  Questioner reasoned that the activity fee is ultimately a “tax”, stating something to the effect that increasing revenue alone “never works”.  Dr. Pimley graciously explains that the activity fee was the result and decision of a Community Task Force and was voted on by full Board. She explains there was time for public comment on this matter before that vote was taken months ago. Questioner still asks for “two minutes of public comment” and Board President Mr. Murphy accommodates.  In those remarks, questioner cleverly manages to work in incendiary words/phrases such as  “negotiations”, “giving teachers raise”, etc.  Dr. Pimley calmly and professionally brings the meeting back to task, clarifying for the questioner that no one has been “given” ”anything and gently reminding him that  the Board and the West Chester Area Education Association are still in  “negotiations”.   Dr. Scanlon closes the activity fee discussion commenting that, at this point, the only way to “stop” the activity fee would be a full Board vote to revoke the system. 

Director of Elementary Education Dr. Missett ends the meeting with a discussion of 2012/13 district enrollment.  We are given both projected and actual enrollments as of August 8:  Elementary is projected at 5130, actual is 5016. Middle school is projected at 2786, actual 2764.  High school  is projected at 3899, actual 3857.  Staffing allocations reflect variance at all levels.  Dr. Missett admits there are a couple of “hot spots” in District, i.e., classes that may go over limit and require formation of additional section, and they are keeping an eye on the numbers.   There is a question  concerning  “six new teachers”.  Dr. Missett clarifies that the six positions are “open” - vacant due to teacher retirement and resignations – not “new”. Open positions will hopefully be confirmed by August Board meeting.

Agenda nears end with a question from Mrs. Snook to Dr. Bertrando concerning  field trip costs:  would it be possible, without too much trouble, to get a listing of how much the District spends on field trips?  Dr. Bertrando admits it may not be an easy task because the District does not actually fund field trips.  Field trips are most often subsidized by student and/or volunteer fundraising.  The real cost to the District is the cost of providing substitute teachers during field trips.  Someone mentions the DECA (Distributive Education Clubs of America, an association of marketing students) trip and Dr. Bertrando notes that DECA is a District student group and any District costs associated with that trip  could certainly be supplied to Mrs. Snook.  Mrs. Snook is still curious and “down the road” would like to see a cost breakdown of District field trips. 

And for that "road", one final acronym: NAEP (National Association of Educational Progress).   East, Fugett and Peirce were chosen to take these tests during the 2012/13 school year. 

Busy, busy.

Consider the source

June 25 West Chester Area School District Board Meeting – all members in attendance

Superintendent’s Report

District  PSSA results should be available late July and we are reminded of the District’s commitment to “student achievement”:  we strive to get our  students not just “proficient” but “advanced” in their PSSA scores.  On that note, Newsweek's Top 1000 High Schools  included East  (#863) and Henderson (#925). Report continues with end of year summaries on professional development goals, parent survey results, reminders of new revenue from activity fees, before/after care, etc. – basically, a nice synopsis of positive accomplishments throughout the school year.

More good news: West Chester Area School District  received the Association of School Business Officials International’s (ASBO) Certificate of Excellence (COE) award in Financial Reporting award for having met or exceeded the program’s high standards for financial reporting and accountability. Recognition through the COE program can help strengthen a district’s presentation for bond issuance statements and promotes a high level of financial reporting.  Congratulations and gratitude to Dr. Moore, Beth Butch and John Scully for bringing this honor to WCASD!

Public Comment on Agenda Items:

Parent spoke passionately of her frustration in attempting to secure afternoon placement for her child with Tot Time, the district's new before/after care provider.  Parent had to return to YMCA for care and is now paying close to $1500 for her 2 children.  She finds it "professionally irresponsible" of the District to end one contract (with YMCA) before starting the other with Tot Time.  We hope and trust her valid concerns were addressed by appropriate individuals after the meeting.

Comment on First reading of Policy DFF, Grants from External Sources – speaker references Keystone to Opportunity grant, and questions language in policy.

Board business:

Approval of  contract with Tot Time (referred to as “A Child’s Place” in schools) to provide before/ after care services at elementary schools for the 2012-13 school year.

Approval of the following policies for “first reading”:

Policy JCDAC:Drug and Alcohol Abuse -revised to reflect changes in terminology.

Policy DJF (new):Food & Beverage Expenditure Guidelines – written as result of Attorney General’s report concerning food expenses in Reading School District.

Policy DFF: Grants from External Sources – revised to include guidelines for pre-approval of grant funding by the school board.

Policy KDC: Flyer Distribution – revised to include pre-approval for distribution of flyers and prohibit distribution of political information on school property.  

Approved and now in effect is Policy GAO (new): Intellectual Property –establishes guidelines for ownership of materials developed while employed by the District.

One item pulled from Property & Finance consent agenda section: Approval of contract with School Media pulled due to concerns expressed at June Property & Finance Committee meeting

Board approved a resolution recognizing that three collective bargaining unit agreements will expire on June 30th and in the event there is no settlement, the current language will remain as ‘status quo’ until an agreement is reached.  In effect, negotiations continue and agreements are valid beyond expiration date of June 30.

Chair of Property & Finance Committee Sean Carpenter addressed  “status quo”  and other issues when he and Board President Vince Murphy visited WCHE on June 22  to update the community on negotiations. Both men presented themselves as calm, professional representatives of the Board, but had no  “new” news, holding steady to the facts and figures posted on District website.   At the beginning of the interview, WCHE made it clear that representatives from West Chester Area Education Association had been invited to the interview. 

A few  interview “highlights”:

In discussing contract negotiations in general, WCHE uses the term “laborers”. Now, one  assumes the commentator was referring to unionized teachers in his theoretical example.  However, “laborers” unionize in many different fields due to specific concerns of their profession, and perhaps a more respectful word choice was in order.  Or better yet, since the discussion concerned school employees/teachers, why not refer to them as such?   Admittedly, one gets lost debating the connotation of “laborers” so let us  affirm it as a “positive”.    Teachers, support staff, building custodians  are indeed “laborers”, for they build and strengthen the foundation of any decent society, which is  a quality and equitable public education system.  Over the top? Maybe, but look where the interview goes from here and my need for  positive affirmations becomes clearer.

WCHE asks Mr. Carpenter and Mr. Murphy how much is in the District fund balance.  After response,  WCHE commentator  proclaims  “the  union” must be “licking their chops”  looking at that number. 

In discussing the District’s proposal of  a 5% surcharge to collect West Chester Area Education Association (“union” )  dues,  WCHE commentator remarks that  “if it were the other way around, you can be sure the union would want to collect the surcharge”.  Sadly, that comment is followed by appreciative chuckles but with no video, we remain  uncertain who emitted them.  We hope and trust that neither member of the Board would have shown such a lack of decorum in discussing sensitive negotiation proposals.

The interview wraps up with ending thanks to all and a final comment by WCHE  that teachers are “not looking good by not coming to the mic(rophone)”.   The microphone?  The microphone that labels all unionized  work force members as   “laborers”?  The  microphone that  portrays teachers as salivating animals hungry for more money and benefits?  THAT microphone?   One could argue the teachers looked just fine not coming to THAT microphone.

Board Reports:

Intermediate Unit  by Mr. Coyle – reports that goals were set for IU

Charter/Alternative Schools by Mrs. Tiernan – cites recent Auditor General  report  on charter/cyber funding, recounting that charter/cyber funding reform could save $365 million per year.  School visits have stopped for summer recess,  but she looks forward to reporting again in September

Communication and Outreach by Ms. Raileanu –  Board outreach has also stopped for summer recess. However, we are promised a Board Connections summer newsletter. 

Legislative/PSBA report by Mrs. Snook – reports on  “tentative” PA budget (now passed, see  https://www.westchestervote.org/Legislative_Update.html)

Mrs. Snook noted there “may” be increase to Educational Improvement Tax Credit (EITC) which she tells us “will benefit WCASD Education Foundation”.  Remember, tax credit programs such as EITC were publicly championed by Mrs. Snook at a local church last month, but not because they would help WCASD Education Foundation.  Let’s  give her a break, move forward  and hope this remark is evidence that she realized the faux pas of her “pulpit speech” and really does care equally about all schools in WCASD.

Final budget did increase EITC by $25 million, to $100 million, making available $60 million for private scholarships, $10 million for pre-kindergarten scholarships, and $30 million for public education improvement programs (WCASD  Education Foundation appears to fall under this category).  The WCASD Education Foundation “benefits” from EITC when a  private-sector business  makes a contribution to the Foundation, which funds mini-grants and internships that support the District’s educational mission.   In return, the business enjoys the gratification of  strengthening the community by investing in education and also receives a generous tax credit from the state.  In addition to EITC, the PA budget includes a new program, the Education Opportunity Scholarship Tax Credit/ Voucher Lite, making available $50 million in tax credits to businesses who contribute to scholarship organizations for the purposes of providing school vouchers to students in low-achieving public schools.  Everybody’s a winner with tax credits, yes?

It is estimated that since its inception in 2001, EITC has cost $586 million in taxpayer subsidies:

”… the EITC is actually quite expensive. Because it reduces available revenue that can fund public schools or human services, the EITC is counted, much like an expenditure, as a cost in the budget. In 2011-12, the cost of the EITC is $75 million, up from $60 million in 2010-11. Through the EITC, businesses are able to obtain a credit against their Pennsylvania taxes in return for making a contribution of cash, personal property (cars, real estate, or stocks) or services to scholarship or educational improvement organizations. After the business is approved for a tax credit, it then makes the contribution to the approved organization. When the contribution is confirmed, the business receives the tax credit to apply against its business tax liability for that year. This reduces the state revenue collected by the same amount as the credit."  http://pennbpc.org/sites/pennbpc.org/files/PBPC-EITC-Analysis-6-25-2012-Final.pdf

So, if state revenue collections are “reduced” by the amount of the tax credits, then it is  “true” that we have less money to spend on education.  So it makes perfect sense for the state to invite the private sector to invest in education and  reward their philanthropy with generous tax credits, that reduce the state revenue collections…wait,  is this really a sustainable, not to mention ethical,  way to “fund” a critical social need such as public education? 

Maybe I overreacted and the  future of funding public education in  PA really is this simple:  create new and increase existing tax credit programs, turning  “funding”  into a competition between private sector investors  scrambling for those credits before the program’s “cap” for the year is reached.  Such a system in turn increases competition - not to mention animosity and increased misunderstanding -  between all types of schools now forced to prove themselves worthy recipients of philanthropic funds.  No more handouts, greedy Public Education, for  “funding”  is evolving into a competitive venture.

At the risk of sounding ungrateful to private-sector investors, such “funding" is  especially concerning  in the area of public education.  Yet in a strange, admittedly despairing way, I could almost be at peace  with this trend if only the legislators/lobbyists responsible for such initiatives  would own up to the fact that “spending” tax credits to “fund” education  promotes the slow but steady privatization of a truly public education system.  Yes –privatization -because the private sector ultimately  decides the beneficiary of the “funding”.  No formula, “flawed” or “fair”,  exists with tax credit “funding”, just a subjective decision to write a check to a particular educational entity in exchange for a tax credit.  In most cases, no real guarantee of where or how the funds are spent either.  And  how long do corporate tax credits alone suffice as “reward” for private sector philanthropists?  Many of them may want or even expect something more, perhaps a school named after them or  a particular curriculum taught/ideology espoused as a condition of their “funding”.   In those cases,  the benefactors will seek out institutions who will accommodate their wishes,  placing at a disadvantage “traditional” public schools who will continue to accept and educate all children. 

Ok, everyone out of the abyss.  Time to finish Mrs. Snook’s report and our favorite part of school board meetings, non-agenda public comment.

Mrs. Snook again mentions need for pension and prevailing wage “relief” and reminds us of the Board’s resolutions in support of Representative Kampf’s prevailing wage bill and also his pension reform bill .   Also mentioned is a bill that would allow students to wear military uniforms at graduation. With no bill number referenced, one believes Mrs. Snook is referring to Representative Duane Milne’s  HB 1307, amending the Public School Code and covering everything from wearing military uniforms at graduation to “financial recovery” of “distressed” districts.   This bill was signed in the House and Senate, and  expect to hear more on its contents during forthcoming charter/cyber reform discussions.

Public  comment, non-agenda items:

Two names are called and we find that one of the speakers called  is “yielding” her 2-minute time  limit to a friend, who will now enjoy 4 full minutes of public comment.  Apparently  that is perfectly legal, my friends.  Lengthy diatribe against teachers, administrators, Board members?  No problem.  Find a friend to sign up and “yield” their time to you, but act quickly for we trust it won’t take long for a policy “revision” to take care of this public comment loophole.  Our “yieldee” speaks sweetly as a former educator who has taught in both public and private systems. She is a senior citizen who values education and has participated in the District’s Bus to the Future,  an event that offers tours of a District high, middle and elementary school to see “students at work”.  She has witnessed firsthand the great things going on in District schools.  And here it comes, the proverbial  “other shoe” drops, hard.  Our speaker is  “appalled” at the “unconscionable  demands” of the teachers, for they  are “brazenly out of line. As the 4 minutes tick on, she continues,  suggesting  to the Board that NO taxpayer money be used to collect union dues  because it is common knowledge that those dues “support political campaigns”  (Unsure of implication of that comment: with  Citizens United recently upheld in Montana case, political campaigns have been for sale to the highest bidder since 2010).   She wraps up her  4 minutes with a caution:  if current teachers are unhappy,  there are “young enthusiastic teachers”  who would “jump at the chance” for a job in this District.

A lovely senior citizen approaches the podium informing us that teachers “should not be immune to recession” and if they are unhappy with Board proposals, she offers a simple solution for all of them:  “leave and find a job in the private sector”.   In reality, her solution may not be so far-fetched.    With the above mentioned tax credits and  pending charter/cyber reform legislation, public education may be the “private sector” sooner than we think.   

A gentleman who had served for 30 years as an  Easttown Township supervisor has fair and valid questions: is West Chester teacher pay commensurate with other districts in area? He kindly commends teachers for service but also feels the District should not collect “union” dues. 

A Republican Committeewoman informs us  that she received  a $230 “increase” this year and she is happy with that. She would be agreeable to give teachers a $230 increase also.  

Two comments on  “disappointment” with District and Board communications concerning  teacher negotiations, one male one female. Female states that upon analysis, she finds the information posted on District website does not match the information posted on the West Chester Area Education Association website.   

Male deserves quoting:  “The issues being negotiated are highly emotional and complex. Additionally, because the collective bargaining process involves people with pride, dignity and unfortunately, at times, egos, it can get frustrating.”  He goes on to urge Property & Finance Chair Mr. Carpenter and Board President Mr. Murphy to cease the “abridged, news clipping type stories until the contract is finalized”.  He continues by encouraging WCAEA President to “persevere to remain above the fray and continue to negotiate in good faith toward contract resolution.”

A teacher reminds us that association dues are collected by employers even in the private sector.

Woman reminds Board of agreement to address charter/cyber reform “resolution”.

President of WCAEA states that the Board’s “assertion of 18.3% increase proves the Board is only interested in misleading”.   She asserts that the WCAEA shares in the Board’s vision of “achievement and affordability” and seeks only COLA increases, no percentages.   

Woman spoke as “teacher, parent and homeowner”, advising the Board and all in attendance to “beware” of the image they portray of teachers.  She hopes and suggests that communication on all fronts remains “positive and truthful”. 

WCASD support staffer recounts something her mother always told her to the effect of “get all the facts” before you make a final decision about anything.   ALL THE FACTS, then “you will know the truth”.   While I agree that  “truth” ideally does correspond to “facts”, my experience during this Board meeting leads me to the sad realization  that, regardless of facts,  there are competing “truths” concerning current negotiations.   So I  close by respectfully offering a complement to our speaker’s maternal advice, and share something my father always told me:  Consider the source.