Budget Passes on 7-1 Vote

I've posted a number of times about the budget, about voting "no", about the high school, and many other topics under sun. There are people out there that get what I am saying. I am not on this Board for my own glorification. If I was, boy did I ever pick the wrong venue for that. I don't vote no just because I like to go against the grain. Honestly, it's not easy to vote against something. It is much easier to be FOR something. I don't taking these votes lightly, however, I think many people do.

Take the budget for one example. Are you prepared to have your taxes raised 30-50% over the next five years? Think about that for a second. Our budget puts us on a path to increase taxes from 23.81 (last year) to 34.98 in 2014-2015. That increase depends on what rate we get on our high school bonds, the cost of the high school project (this number is based on $100 million) and what return the PSERS investments get. The increase may get bigger or it may come down if the stars align. As an example, if you own a $200,000 house in Mt Lebanon, your taxes are projected to go from $4,762 all the way to $6,996. A $400,000 home will go from $9,524 to $13,992.

Ask yourself if you really think those tax increases are going to attract young families to Mt Lebanon. When I moved here in 2004 and looked at competing school districts, communities, and places to raise my kids, Mt Lebanon was one of three places I thought would work. And I was right about that. My family loves it here. We are proud when we escort our out-of-town relatives to the different places in Mt Lebanon that make it unique. We go to the parks, Beverly, Washington Rd, our beautifully restored elementary schools, and the list goes on and on. People moving to Pittsburgh all do what I did. They look at the overall quality of life in any prospective community.

When I vote on that budget, I don't just look at what is happening this year (a .30 mill increase) because honestly, what happens on a year to year basis fluctuates so much. But when you see the impact that your decision is going to have on future families that are evaluating Mt Lebanon much the way my family and I did in 2004, you have to have a bit of perspective. The impact the Board will have TODAY on the decisions made by unknown families five years from now is staggering. After talking with a few Board member off-the-record, I know that there are more people on the Board that get the fact that putting us on the course to a possible 50% tax increase makes this budget unsustainable. But there is a bit of a fear of inevitability. That we can't actually avoid those increase. I completely disagree with that assessment. As a Board we hardly looked deep into the budget to find cost savings. We never did sit down and prioritize our budget objectives. We never did implement a process to start a zer0-based budget and we never did get the programmatic budget that was asked for after last years budget passed.

Until we can sit down and look at our expenses based on programs and until we can sit down and start every budget year over at a zero number, then I fear this Board will not have the ability to avoid the large tax increases coming.

We hear every day in the news today about school districts cutting staff (see Sto-Rox), cutting classes, closing schools (see City of Pittsburgh), asking teachers to forgo raises, etc. Mt Lebanon has largely been able to avoid most of that economic fallout. It is for this reason that I believe the community thinks things are fine- that the District has sounded an "all-clear" signal that those types of things simply won't fall on us. People by their very nature are optimistic for the most part- this is very much the same as what I said earlier, that people want to be FOR something and not against something. I don't know at what point residents in Mt Lebanon will start to figure out that 50% in property tax increases will start to erode their everyday lives, but it will happen. I might not be on the school board at that point but I will proudly say that I voted against these budgets and that I was unwilling to sit idly by and say nothing while it all happened.

A couple of problems I have with the budget this year:

1) Last year you may remember that I said we should try to maintain current teacher/student ratios. For the 2008-2009 budget we projected a drop in student population of 63. Well, it turns out that we were wildly inaccurate. We actually dropped 122 students or almost 100% more than projected. Last year we attritioned four teaching positions partly due to this enrollment issue. This next year we are again looking at a student population decline of about 35, however, we are not projected to lose any staffing positions. This is 157 students lost in 2 years and we are only losing 4 positions- all last year. There is something very wrong with this. Granted there are some issues with where the retirements are coming from this year and with only a handful of retirements throughout the District, it is hard to find efficiencies. But we MUST find them. That is our job and the job of the administration.

2) Funding of a PSERs Rate Spike Stabilization Fund- We are taking $500,000 of taxpayer money and putting it aside so that taxpayers will not get hit with the full one-year impact of the PSERS increase in 2012 (see story here). To me, this is the height of wasteful use of money. Setting this money aside does nothing to reduce future millage increases, it simply defers when you will see it. If we were to take this money, have it sit in a money market fund at .5% interest, it would be more beneficial over the long-term to our taxpayers than to use it to manufacture a level increases in taxes for PSERS. With the high school project staring us straight in the face, it makes all the sense in the world to use this money to INVEST in the high school project to reduce how much we will pay in debt service for the next 3o years. You take this money, you take the $175,000 we have saved in our latest capital projects (from bids coming in under estimate) and you start to invest all that money into a project that is going to be around a while- just like the high school. Heck, aren't we having issues with just a six-lane pool being installed at the new athletic wing? I wonder if half a million dollars would get us an extra couple lanes? I wonder if half a million dollars would allow us to expand that building a bit to build a stretch pool? I wonder what half a million dollars would do for our science wing? For our language arts classrooms? For turfing a field? For putting lights at Mellon? Any and all of these ideas are a better use of $500,000 than to level out a millage increase in my opinion.

3) Zero-based/Program Based Budget- We are still not looking at a budget that starts from scratch every year. Any time you get a base budget and increase items by a percentage every year (yes this is a simplistic way to explain it but is largely true) then you run the risk of a budget that gets out of control much like the Federal Government. We need to find a way to priortize every expense and we can only do this if we know the cost of everything in our budget.

Those are the reasons I voted against this budget. I don't feel comfortable approving a budget that sets us on a path to tax people out of Mt Lebanon or to tax so much that young families refuse to relocate here. We can do better than this and I think we owe it to our taxpayers to do better than this.

Finally, on another note, I voted to approve the use of the IPCC Textbook in our science classroom. There were some questions out there by people who didn't bother to ask me about why I would want to ban a book from use in the class. If you go back to the meeting, please note that I asked if there was "balance" to the topic being discussed. Global warming is a hotly debated topic right now. The fact of the matter is, this IPCC book is largely responsible for putting GW on the radar. For that fact alone, this book is a historically significant piece of work and is reason enough to have our kids read it. But, I would be uncomfortable sending our kids out to the world if their only two sources of information on the GW debate were the IPCC book and Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" (which we approved last year). After talking with Mr. Allison and having him gather some more information, I felt comfortable that all sides of the warming debate are being presented to our students.

Thanks for reading.
James

High School Update

I have been keeping quiet on the latest high school update that took place on Monday. I still have a lot of questions myself and I wanted to get feedback from people prior to me posting my thoughts here. You can see the full architect presentation on the District website here. There is also a recent Almanac article on the project here.

First, if you hadn't heard, there is a new design for the structure itself. Rather than describe it in detail, I'll link to a Post-Gazette article here that has a picture of the proposed design. This design reuses the space in Building B, the Little Theater, and the Auditorium. Building B would house multiple floors of classroom space. This change was perhaps the biggest one of all as we had been told time and again that Building B was NOT reusable for classroom space. I am sure there is a simple explanation on how this was figured out, but it would still be good to know.

This new plan gives us a brand new athletics wing that would house a new practice and competition gym along with a pool, locker rooms, and athletic support staff offices. In addition to the Athletic wing, we would build a brand new academic wing as well. This academic wing would provide for the latest classroom learning technologies and spaces.

What I found good about this presentation was that the design is maybe 100 times better than what we were originally shown. Something like this is far better at keeping with the traditions of Mt Lebanon. From that perspective alone it was a relief to see so much progress being made.

The costs for this solution right now stand at about $120 million with the architect and construction manager looking for an additional 10% reduction in the coming weeks. To be sure, bids for construction work nowadays are coming in under budget and that 10% reduction may very well be attainable.

Besides the question about B Building being used as classroom space, I came across some cost information that I found interesting. Last August I had posted some cost information from the PDE, RSMeans, and the Bethel Park high school project. I also linked to the actual PDE cost documentation here.

The new design calls for 440,000 sq ft building at $120,000,000. 33% renovation construction and 67% new construction. According to PDE statistics and various architectural sites, renovation costs should come in around $110-120/sq ft and new construction at $212/sq ft. This is before the recent economic downturn.

If we are renovating about 145,000 sq feet, then that cost should be around $16 million. If you take the remaining square feet (about 295,000) then that would mean we are spending $104,000,000 on the new areas of the school. $104 million divided by 295,000 square feet equals more than $350/sq ft. PDE says (remember, pre economic downturn) that we ought to be paying in the neighborhood of $212/sq ft. Bethel Park had their costs pegged at about $204/sq ft last time I looked (linked above). Even understanding that we have asbestos and demolition and phasing to do, such a premium seems unreasonable.

So what's this mean? Either we are paying a HUGE price tag to renovate Building B or we are paying far too much per sq ft for new construction.

Here's what I am thinking. For $212/sq foot of NEW construction, (PDE pre-economic downturn numbers), we could build a 400,000 square foot high school for $84,800,000. This is very much in line with what is happening at Bethel Park.

I asked at the meeting on Monday for the architect to provide a breakdown of cost by building.

Add to the information above the uncertainly that comes along with floating bonds year after year after year (literally) to avoid a referendum to pay for a project of this magnitude, the huge pension liabilities coming due, our unfunded health care (OPEB) liabilities, state budget shortfalls that impact our basic education subsidy, and an inability (note, I am not saying "unwillingness") of this board to delve into the base budget to evaluate the possibility of further cost savings in our budget, and I still am of the mind that we cannot afford a project like this until we pay down our outstanding debt. I also get that I am most likely in the minority on this issue. There is a mindset out there that says "we have to do SOMETHING". While I am on this Board and in the minority on this I will work to ensure that that "something" does not include paying too far over market value for what we are getting.

The next step in the process is a special meeting on June 1st. The architect has asked us to vote on this option at that time so that he can move the PlanCon process forward. So, if you want your voice heard, you need it have it heard in the next two weeks.

Thanks for reading.

James

GCA, Keystone Exam Update

***UPDATE***
Senator Orie's office contacted me yesterday (5/7) and said that there are certainly financial concerns related to the GCA/KE proposal but they want to make it clear that they are not ONLY going after the cost of the exams to stop them. They are also looking at local rights issues and what is best for our students. They said that there was definitely something lost in the translation in the message that was released which I posted below. Thank you to Senator Orie for clearing that up.
***

After my initial blog post this morning regarding the new Keystone Exams, I found out that I am not the only Director in PA that is questioning the wisdom of these exams and also the apparent re-direction on the part of the PSBA.

I also was made aware of a statement by State Senator Jane Orie. You can view her statement on her website here or read the statement below:

Joint Statement from Senator Orie and Rep. Saylor On Alternative Graduation Tests - aka Keystone Exams 2.0

HARRISBURG – State Senator Jane C. Orie (R-40) and Representative Stan Saylor (R-94) today issued the following joint statement regarding the Coalition for Effective & Responsible Testing’s alternative to the Department of Education’s high school graduation tests now dubbed the “Keystone Exams.” The Coalition, led by Pennsylvania State Education Association (PSEA), school administrators and local PTAs, called for a new dialogue with the Rendell Administration.

“We appreciate that the coalition has kept the dialogue open concerning the need for these high-stakes exams. However, at a time when our state is facing a $2.6 billion and growing deficit, we believe there is no need for these additional, costly tests. The last thing that we need in this budget is new spending.

“Why are any additional tests necessary? Our goal should be to teach, not test. First, students do not need another test. The Commonwealth needs to strengthen its classroom teaching first – in a coordinated way. We should start with the early grades and then build on that knowledge and experience.

“Secondly, schools already are using Algebra I and II end of course exams as part of the multi-state coalition begun several years ago through Achieve. Before spending anymore, why not see how these exams work?

“Any assessment systems we consider should be used to measure performance of students as they move through the education system and identify solutions for improving student, teacher and school performance prior to graduation. In order to do that, we need to step back and take a look at what is happening and what we need to happen for our children.

“We look forward to working with all interested parties to improve the quality of our student’s education. It is important to note that that this Governor will soon be leaving office and the next administration should not have their hands tied should with new mandates and new costs.”

Contact:

Nate Silcox (Sen. Orie)
(717) 787-6538

Sean L. Yeakle ( Rep. Saylor)
(717) 787-3406

I like that Senator Orie is taking a stand, however, taking a stand because of the financial impact of this decision takes away from the the other reasons why it is wrong to have exit exams. If the economy starts humming along again, this argument is completely taken away.

In my mind, the entire principle of statewide mandated graduation tests infringes on the rights given to local school districts in the Pennsylvania Constitution. Any reining in of these rights ought to be seriously and deliberately debated in the legislature with deference given to those districts that have continuously performed well and graduated students exceptionally prepared for the future.

Thanks for reading.

James

Keystone Exams 2.0

We've moved from GCA's over to Keystone Exams and now onto Keystone Exams 2.0. It looks like the Keystone Exams 2.0 is gathering the momentum it needs from various groups to possibly be the solution that is adopted by the state.

Below is an article from the Post-Gazette that outlines some of the changes from the GCA and the Keystone Exam 1.0 proposals:

Graduation tests gaining momentum

Monday, April 27, 2009

By Eleanor Chute, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

In less than three months, the moratorium on changing state graduation requirements will be over, leaving the state board of education open to take the next step toward state-required exams for graduation.

The idea of graduation competency exams once was so controversial that more than 20 statewide organizations opposed it, about 200 school boards passed resolutions against it and state legislators blocked the state Board of Education from acting on changing graduation requirements.

Now even groups that opposed a graduation competency exam are lining up in favor of variations on the theme of state-created, end-of-course tests for high school students.

A key difference is how much the exams -- expected to cost millions of dollars to develop -- will count.

The latest proposal -- called Keystone Exams 2.0 -- was announced last week by the Coalition of Effective and Responsible Testing, a group of statewide organizations including the Pennsylvania State Education Association, the American Federation of Teachers in Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania PTA.

In this proposal, school districts voluntarily would have their students take end-of-course tests, but the tests could count for no more than 20 percent of the grade.

If the federal government were to permit the state to use the tests for meeting the standards of No Child Left Behind, then current 11th-grade state tests would be discontinued and the end-of-course tests would become mandatory.

Joseph Torsella, chairman of the state board of education, expects the board to take up the issue as soon as the moratorium is lifted at the end of June. Its next meeting will be July 15 and 16 at the University of Pittsburgh.

Mr. Torsella called the latest proposal "a good contribution to the conversation" and said he will be meeting with its proponents this week to get more details.

It's too early to tell what the board will do, but Mr. Torsella said, "In the end, the board will be guided by what we think is going to be best for Pennsylvania graduates."

In a push for stronger graduation requirements, the state board of education nearly a year ago made an initial publication of regulations calling for students to pass six of 10 "graduation competency assessments" in math, language arts, social studies and science; the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment tests; Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate exams; or a local assessment that independent evaluators certify is equivalent to the graduation competency assessments. It would start in the 2013-14 school year.

Last month, the state Department of Education and the Pennsylvania School Boards Association reached a compromise called Keystone Exams.

This plan would start a year later, aim to preserve local control and emphasize the exams would be voluntary. It also would split the cost of validating local assessments between the state and local districts, instead of putting the cost solely on the local districts.

With the addition of the Keystone Exams 2.0 proposal, Mr. Torsella said, "What's clear to me is that the conversation has really advanced and there's sort of a universal recognition that we are not doing right by our high school graduates, that there's a place for the new Keystones and that we ought to have meaningful accountability behind what we should be doing and what we should be expecting."

Last week, state Education Secretary Gerald Zahorchak said he appreciated the participation of the coalition but said he was worried that counting the tests for only 20 percent of the grade would remove the assurance that students have appropriate skills.

While he was "gratified" the latest plan includes Keystone Exams, Tim Allwein, PSBA assistant director of governmental and member relations, also questioned whether counting the exams for just 20 percent would offer the necessary assurance.

Sen. Jeffrey Piccola, R-Dauphin, chair of the Senate Education Committee, issued a statement calling the proposal "a step in the right direction" although he didn't "find the substance necessarily rigorous enough within this alternative proposal."

One of the early supporters of graduation competency exams, Joan Benso, president and CEO of Pennsylvania Partnerships for Children, said she, too, found it encouraging more groups are proposing final exams, but she worries their weight in the latest proposal "may not be high enough to have young people take them seriously."

PSEA treasurer Jerry Oleksiak said the latest proposal "provides for high-quality, end-of-course exams that will help children and will also help school districts that need to improve their local assessment systems. That's the best way to ensure a meaningful high school diploma."

Some local school board members wonder whether the Keystone Exams are necessary at all.

West Jefferson Hills school board member Shauna D'Alessandro views the latest proposal as a "step in the right direction" because it would replace tests, not add them.

However, she doesn't think the new tests are needed.

"We already know which students need help. We know that from the PSSA," she said, referring to the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment tests given in math, reading, writing and science in selected grades.

Nor does she think the state can afford the millions of dollars to pay for them. "The money could be used for initiatives to improve student achievement," she said.

Pine-Richland school board member Therese Dawson said the results of the current state tests could be used better.

"That's the launch point," she said. "We already have achievement benchmarks in place. We just need to use them."

Alan Lesgold, dean of the University of Pittsburgh School of Education, said the 20 percent figure might work as an "incremental approach" to measuring how well students do.

"The problem you've got is districts aren't doing as well as they might in getting kids educated well. If you suddenly implement high-stakes exams and kids can't graduate, you're penalizing the kids for the failures of the school system," Dr. Lesgold said.

Education writer Eleanor Chute can be reached at echute@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1955.

First published on April 27, 2009 at 12:00 am

I believe the 2.0 exams are a huge improvement from the original GCAs and the original Keystone Exams. These tests are voluntary and, if you do choose to employ them, would replace the 11th grade PSSA test. This means it would not be an additional achievement test, it would replace an existing one. Additionally, while counting for 20% of a final grade, it is not used as the only criteria to see if a student is ready to graduate.

I am not sure if the Pennsylvania Department of Education is going to let go of the idea of having a required high school exit exam. It is a way for them to better control the curriculum they think should be taught to our students. It will be up to our State legislature to determine what direction to take. I look forward to seeing what proposals are put up for our representatives.

Thanks for reading.

James

PSERS Story from Tribune-Review

The Tribune-Review had a nice article on the PSERS issues that will be hitting school districts and residents across the state.

The article is below and can be found here.

Teacher pension 'tsunami' expected across Pennsylvania

Tools Print this article E-mail this article Subscribe to this paper Larger text | Smaller text

By Rick Wills
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Sunday, May 3, 2009

Buzz up!

This year, the Pine-Richland School district is contributing $900,000 to state's teacher pension fund.

Three years from now -- and for many years thereafter -- the district expects to pay roughly $7 million annually into the Pennsylvania Public School Employees' Retirement System, known as PSERS.

The dilemma facing Pine-Richland faces each of the state's 501 school districts. A bubble in the number of teachers expected to retire in the next decade and a 30 percent drop in the total value of the fund's assets last year in the souring economy means districts contribute more to the teachers' retirement fund.

School officials in turn are predicting almost certain property tax hikes at a time when many Pennsylvanians have watched the recession slash their 401(k) accounts in half or force their companies to end pension plans entirely.

"This is a financial tsunami, and doing something now does not mean significant relief for years or decades. It's one ugly scenario," said Jay Himes, executive director of the Pennsylvania Association of School Business Officials.

Teacher retirement benefits are mandated by law. Courts have ruled they cannot be reduced for current teachers or state employees covered under similar retirement plans.

"I'm worried about this, even now," said Stephen Hawbaker, president of the Pine-Richland school board.

Starting in the 2012-13 school year, when retirements are expected to accelerate, school districts and the state will have to pay an additional $2.5 billion annually into the fund, according to the Association of School Business Officials.

The fund collects from 273,000 active members and pays pensions to 174,000 retirees. It was valued at $67.2 billion in 2007. That dropped to $45.4 billion at the end of December.

Jude Abraham, business manager at the Hempfield Area School District, Westmoreland County's largest, anticipates that by 2012, the district will be paying $5 million more than the $2.5 million it pays now. The district's budget is about $80 million.

"Many districts are using reserve funds to try to plan for this. But taxes will have to go up to compensate for this," he said.

The state Legislature sets the contribution rates from teachers and school districts. School employees, including teachers, pay between 6 percent and 7.5 percent of their salaries into the pension fund. The state and school districts pay a combined 4.76 percent of a teacher's salary into the fund.

In the Hampton School District, payments this year are $510,000 -- an expense business manager Jeff Kline estimates will be $2 million by 2012.

"It's hard enough to balance a budget, and we have no control over this spending. The contributions are set by the state," Kline said.

While poor financial market conditions are the immediate cause of the problem, Timothy Potts of Democracy Rising, a nonpartisan citizens group, lays blame with lawmakers.

"The Legislature always prefers to have someone else raise taxes, which school boards will now be forced to do," said Potts, who is a member of the Carlisle Area school board in Cumberland County.

Pittsburgh Public Schools, the largest district in the county, has 2,700 teachers and full-time professionals. Chris Berdnik, chief financial officer and chief operations officer, estimates that contributions to the pension fund will rise from $10.08 million this year to $33.18 million in the 2012 school year.

"The PSERS funding crisis as one of the most significant challenges we face in the next decade," he said.

"The PSERS funding crisis as one of the most significant challenges we face in the next decade," he said.

In 2001, lawmakers increased their pension benefits by 50 percent and, at the same time, boosted teachers' and state workers pensions by 25 percent.

But the Legislature didn't require a corresponding increase in contributions from school districts, says Wythe Keever, a spokesman for the Pennsylvania State Education Association, the state's largest teachers' union.

"The districts, in the latter part of '90s and in the early part of this decade basically took a pension holiday. They did not pay enough to sustain the system during the down years," Keever said.

In 2002, for instance, contributions from school districts in the state were $539,000, Keever said. The same year, the state contributed $662 million.

Contributions generally have been based on the assumption that the stock market will go up 8 percent on average each year. During much of the 1990s and the early part of this decade, the fund generated double-digit returns.

"Earnings were very high until about a year ago," said Rep. David Levdansky, an Elizabeth Democrat who chairs the House Finance Committee.

Levdansky favors setting minimum contributions from teachers, districts and the state that would be required even if the stock market does well.

"I wish we had done that. We would not be in this kind of trouble if we had," he said.

Rep. Paul Clymer, a Bucks County Republican and ranking member of the House Education Committee, said legislators are looking at whether federal stimulus money can be contributed to the pension plan. Clymer has introduced a bill that would push state and school contributions to 7 percent immediately.

"That at least would be somewhat of a cushion for the future," he said.

But school districts remain in a tight spot.

"The market has changed and has caught up with the rest of the world, but raising taxes is really the last thing we want to do," said Jon Rupert, business manger of the Highlands School District In Natrona Heights.

Rick Wills can be reached at rwills@tribweb.com or 412-320-7944.
Back to headlines

With the recent uptick in the markets, the situation has improved somewhat. It is just hard to say by how much.

Thanks for reading.

James