Fiscal responsibility is the buzzword in public school finance these days. Boards are using it, parents are using it, and community members are using it. However, when it comes to salaries, benefits, and perks, there’s a fine line between fiscal responsibility and fair compensation. The state of the economy is obviously a major factor. Attracting the best people is also important. The question of fairness also comes into play when you look at the differences between management and the workforce. Management salaries are usually higher, of course, but better raises and benefits shouldn’t necessarily be reserved for the top people in the organization. Teachers are and always will be the engine that drives any school system. They should be recognized as such.
We know the salary history of the district teachers, as well as what their raise and benefits package will look like for the next 3 years. A recent FOIA has produced the same information for the administration. Raises at the director, principal, and assistant principal level over the last few years have generally been between 2% and 4.5%. The exception is the current year. Most administrators’ salaries were frozen at 2010-2011 levels. There are a couple of exceptions that are puzzling, but generally I give the Board credit for fairly applying the salary freeze to the entire workforce. Remember, the teachers did not advance to the next salary step this year.
The benefit and perk data is somewhat limited, but what is clear is that the administration’s benefits are clearly superior to the teachers. Data obtained from the district website (which was subsequently removed) shows district contributions to healthcare, retirement (403b plan, which is above and beyond a normal pension), and tuition reimbursement. While administrator contracts call for a cap of $5,000 towards doctoral programs, this data shows that 11 administrators received $15,000 towards their program. Benefits at this level are clearly not available to teachers. Teachers aren’t even reimbursed for business travel.
The Board will be voting on administrator contracts at the June board meeting. I look forward to seeing the Board exercise continued fiscal responsibility when it comes to the administrators’ salaries, benefits, and perks. I would welcome a raise and benefits package more in line with the current teachers’ contract. The days of big benefits and cushy perks are over (at least until the next bubble) so let’s level the playing field and use those assets to improve our schools and educate our children.
Furthermore, we need to move many of the administrators over to a more leveraged plan based on performance. One of the measures of performance should be community satisfaction as measured by a fairly administrated survey. Another measure should be the fiscal well being of the District based on how close operations match the budgets set forth by the Board. The most important measure of performance, however, will be the quality of education and the ability of the schools to meet state and federal standards. If the administration wants to get paid like management at larger commercial enterprises, its about time their pay packages mirror those in the business world.
The only thing the administration brought back from their taxpayer funded Rome trip was an increased sense of entitlement. All of this extra waste of taxpayer dollars could be eliminated and guess what; administrators would still want to work in Deerfield. It is time to reel it in, BOE. Put our over taxed, over accumulated money where there is DIRECT impact on our student’s education, not on administrators who have little to no contact with the students!!
If a teacher left after receiving tuition reimbursement Supt. Goier would release her law firms to recapture every last penny, court costs and any interest. But since it was one of her loyal disciples, it’ll be chalked up as another waste of taxpayer money. So again the BOE looks like idiots for rubber stamping the superintendent’s tuition reimbursement request, to supersede their contract allotment in order for her to buy allegiance from her cronies, only to be left holding the bills. When are you going to get it Ellen London? For $250K a year, I could pretend to be your friend too. Only now do we understand why educational services were cut to Special Education students and why the teachers were given the run around in a district with a $20M surplus, so that the district can build up the Education Fund and then skim $2M off for the Building Fund to do more back door referendums.
But which is worse, paying for outside consultation or having Supt. Goier fill the positions on her own – remember who she dragged into the district: DeLuca, former principal from Walden, the aforementioned administrator who is leaving, etc.
Maybe in a future Spotlight on District 109 article you could ask the community for some vetting questions for the future school board candidates. For example… Would you let your personal relationship with the Superintendent cloud your judgment on fiscal responsibility to the community and educational needs of the students? Would you look up, acknowledge, listen to community speakers at board meetings who have concerns about delivery of educational services? Would you allow the administration free reign on spending with no oversight? Would you allow the administration to keep hiring administrative support staff with no direct contact with the students? Would you allow for administrators to charge for gas to go to and from work? Would you allow top heavy benefits for the administration and then stick it to the teachers? Would you ever enter a school while teachers and students are present or talk to parents to understand what the issues are? Would you work to repair the relations between the district, the teachers, and the parents?