School Board Ponders Cuts, Salary Freeze

Legislative Dithering

After a couple of postponements due to confusion in the Missouri legislature, the school board finally held their annual budget session last Monday night at Hickory Hills. The legislature ended on a slightly higher note for school funding because - after an excruciating session of tinkering with education funding - they didn't really do anything beyond the original 2% cut to all districts and to categoricals like transportation and Parents as Teachers.

Race to the Top

The meeting began with Dr. Ridder going over round two of Missouri's Race to the Top (RT3) Memo of Understanding. The memo was due last Friday and required a sign-off from the superintendent, board president and teacher union representative - as required by RT3 guidelines.

The two states that received grants in round one (Deleware and Tennessee) each had a long history of collaborative planning and meaningful reform. By contrast, educators are a late addition to the table in Missouri and have not been involved much in the conversations leading to the RT3 application. While Springfield and Missouri NEA agree with many elements of the plan - rigorous standards, stronger academic requirements, improved data systems, quality early learning programs - there are major concerns regarding teacher evaluations linked to student test scores and other issues. In its present form, the state's plan for RT3 presents more questions than answers for professional educators, and for those reasons, SNEA did not sign-off on Race to the Top.

Budget - Critical Needs

CFO Steve Chodes reported on the projected 2010-11 budget, where he predicted total revenues to be $200.5 million - $1.8 million less than last year. Chodes presented the board with a list of new budget requests for 2010-11 entitled "critical needs". Among the items listed:

Staff Development - Smart Board Training . . . . . $91,690

Telephone Services and Replacing LCD Bulbs . . . $105,000

Vertical Salary Adjustments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $400,000

Increases PSRS/PEERS Contribution . . . . . . . . . $550,000

Social Security, new IRS Requirements . . . . . . . $150,000

Legal Fees increase due to Collective Bargaining $200,000

The Meter Is Running

Legal Fees due to Collective Bargaining? We've done a little research on this, and Springfield is the only district in the state (KC Public has a staff attorney to bargain with AFT) that outsources their bargaining to a lawyer - and it's not as if there weren't enough capable administrators available in R-12. This practice is not only incredibly expensive, it tends to interfere with relationship building - and takes much longer due to emphasis on language over issues.

It should be noted that NONE of the four employee bargaining teams in Springfield - teachers, nurses, custodial/maintenance, bus drivers - employ lawyers at the table. The teacher bargaining team is made up entirely of . . . teachers. Lawyers are typically used to refine language at the end of the bargaining process, not lead the district bargaining team while the meter is running. This is most assuredly not an example of good stewardship of public funds.

Parents As Teachers Projected Cuts

The discussion turned to proposed budget cut of $770,000 to the Parents As Teachers program due to state funding cuts. There was some discussion of perhaps shifting some Title I funds to help shore up PAT, but it remains to be seen if that can be worked out. Title I is one department that is not facing a budget shortfall since receiving considerable federal stimulus dollars. The legislature's decision to cut Parents As Teachers clearly illustrates how out of touch legislators are with priorities - does not bode well for the future of our community or state.

The 0.5% Solution?

The tone was set for the discussion of salary adjustments when a board member led off with a statement that employees are more concerned with keeping their jobs than receiving pay increases - this based admittedly on anecdotal conversations. But we were of the understanding that all the cuts listed in the 2% raise proposal would be through attrition, so no current employee would actually lose their job - but there would probably be a marked increase in RIFs as teachers are reassigned to fill vacancies.

The board offered no serious discussion of the projected 2% raise scenario, but the CFO provided a sheet of projected cuts that would be necessary. In order to provide a 2% raise, the district submits that it would have to cut:

2 ISSI positions

1 Assistant Principal

1 Quality Improvement Specialist

2 Elementary Secretaries

1 ESOL Teacher

18 Teacher Aides

2 Guidance Counselors

0.55 Nurses

1 Resource Officer

41 Teaching Positions (through attrition with estimated 70+ retirements)

With discussion of the 2% scenario dead on arrival, talk turned to whether to completely freeze salaries or to repeat last year's 0.5% increase to offset increases to retirement. The board was split on this, and it was widely agreed that it was not an agreeable task . . . after some discussion four board members agreed that providing the 0.5% increase was the best they could do.

Budget Priorities - Contracts

While salaries appear to be effectively frozen for a second consecutive year, the district continues to pay out a projected $640,000 in 2010-11 for loan payments from the general fund for capital expenditures that would normally be covered by bond revenue ($457,000 in loan payments next year for purchase and remodeling of new administration center - total loan was over $4 million). Further, the district now projects an additional $200,000 for extraordinary and unnecessary legal expenses for collective bargaining. Add the $660,000 in loan payments from last year, and we see the district taking $1.3 million from the general fund for building projects and unnecessary lawyer fees over a two-year period while salaries are frozen.

It is hard to listen to board members talk about teachers being satisfied with holding their jobs when those same board members have twice voted to allocate general fund revenues for capital projects - in both cases almost immediately after bonds for capital projects had been approved by voters.

Several board members commented on the need for a tax levy increase, especially since the state has proven to be an unreliable source for school funding. The last time the district passed a levy, they chose to withhold a large portion as a gesture of good stewardship to the community. A couple of years later, after the entire levy was 'rolled out', they allocated 4.5% raise for teachers - and have since spent millions in operating funds as loan payments for capital projects.

Teachers have now received their contracts in the mail along with the obligatory salary schedule. Contracts will be modified after the board makes a final decision on salary adjustments, which seems likely to be 0.5% (multiply your salary by 0.005) to cover the PSRS increase. SNEA is paying attention and will be issuing reports as budget decisions are made public.