Reflections on the Budget Vote

I’ve had a couple of days to digest the board’s unanimous vote to approve the HISD budget and salary schedule. In the end the transfer of $5 million from the fund balance to the PUA brought the naysayers on board. Thanks must be given to the District VI trustee for cobbling this deal together. On a more somber note it is clear we have a hugely divided school board. The additional money into the PUA amounts to $23 extra dollars per student with no real controls on how the money can be spent. In the end this will benefit the schools with the largest enrollment which explains why it was so important to the trustees in Districts I,V,VI, & VII. I’ve always been an advocate of single-member board districts but there is a decided lack of a broad district-wide view on the school board. Perhaps it is time to consider a plan that would give us seven single-member districts and two trustees elected at-large.

HISD Salary Controversy

The HISD school board continues to haggle over the salary issue. The superintendent is holding firm with his 3% plus step proposal for teachers. Some members of the board seem intent on carving into that raise in order to increase funding for the PUA (per unit/student allocation). Only the member from District V seems sincere about getting more money to the schools. There is no doubt merit in sending money to schools in order to create programs that may treat the social and emotional needs of students but the money does not need to come from salaries. There are many areas (ASPIRE?) that can be cut to fund PUA. The superintendent made a strong argument fro both the percentage raise and the step. He rightly stated that there are already several compressed steps. Teachers spending two or three years on the same step does little for employee retention. He also produced maps showing the huge numbers of teachers who live in other districts and are currently driving into HISD. He argued that teachers can give themselves a large raise in gasoline savings just by teaching in the district they live. Every board member seemed impressed by the maps. I am cautiously optimistic that five votes exist to pass the proposed salary increase.

Centralized Education Systems v. Local Control

Yesterday I had the opportunity to listen to a former DOE official discuss educational systems in other parts of the world. Much of her talk which took place in a very informal setting, focused on Singapore. She described a system that is free to everyone, tracks students according to merit, has virtually no dropout rate, and is able to graduate students who are then able to fill jobs needed in society. All this is paid for with only about 3% of Singapore's gross domestic product. (The U.S. spends about 6% on K-12) The entire system is directed by strict centralized planning and control of the educational system.

This is a marked contrast to the way we operate our educational systems in t he United States. Since the first mandatory public education systems were established in the 1830's education has always been subject to local control. As our discussion developed we began to talk about the thousands of local school boards in this country and the relative merits and abilities of individual school board members. Our system is considered broken by many, Singapore's is being held up as a model of efficiency and accomplishment. Even if we assume that is true, the question must be ask - Would individual Americans be willing to give up local control of their schools? If not, how can we hope to compete with the rest of the world, most of which has centralized systems?

June 19, 2008 Consultation

I think I am going to begin this blog by chronicling HISD consultation meetings. The following is the Houston Federation of Teachers agenda for the June 19, 2008 consultation meeting. The agenda is in blue and the district's responses along with my comments are in black.

HOUSTON FEDERATION OF TEACHERS

Please include the following to the June 19, 2008 Instructional Consultation agenda:


1. Salary and Benefits

The Federation reiterates it’s belief that an increase of 3% plus step for teachers and 3% for other employees is the bare minimum needed to keep up with the spiraling cost of living increases we are now experiencing. Any plans to reduce the proposed pay increase in favor of increased student performance based incentives will be most vehemently opposed. Employees need to be able to budget month to month based on a stable salary. We cannot base mortgage or automobile payments on an undetermined student performance incentive that may or may not happen. The Federation continues to support the following:

· A salary increase of 3% plus step movement to all teachers.
· A 3% across the board raise for employees on the Master Schedule, Bus Drivers, Hourly workers, and Substitutes.
· No changes in the 2009 benefit year in health insurance. Any cost increases need to be absorbed by HISD with no costs being passed through to employees including premium increases, a reduction in the benefit plan, or reducing access to health providers by capping the payout thus increasing employee costs.

The district responded by saying they are going forward and recommending to the board the pay proposal HFT supports. The district response did make it clear that there are those members of the board who would like to lower or eliminate the pay proposal. The issue is being portrayed by these members as budgetary. They wish to raise the per pupil allotment for campuses and the money should come from the proposed pay raise. I advocated reducing the amount of money budgeted for ASPIRE ($25 million) and using that money to raise per pupil funding.

2. Counseling Positions

Why do we have a counseling ACP program if we are closing counseling positions all across the district? The current process is a nightmare. Counselors are being informed at the last minute that their position is being closed, thereby jeopardizing their salaries. Will they still be protecting their salaries for one year?

The district's response was again budgetary. Evidently principals are using their budget discretion to close counseling positions and spending the money on other positions on their campuses. There is considerable dispute regarding protecting the salaries of the counselors who were informed at the end of the year their positions are being eliminated. The Federation has always maintained that an employee must be informed of a contractual change no later than 45 days prior to the last day of instruction. The district is maintaining that they must be informed 45 days prior to the first day of instruction the following year. This is a huge difference and we must get it resolved.

3. PDAS

May 6, 2008 was the last day for teachers to sign their 2007-2008 assessments yet we are receiving widespread reports that principals are calling their teachers in to sign lowered assessments. Why is this happening? Who doesn’t know the rules? The Federation is requesting that a notification be sent to all principals informing them that if they have missed the May 6, 2008 deadline the PDAS assessment reverts to last year’s scores.

According to the district, there evidently is no penalty for principals missing this timeline. There first and often repeated response to this issue is for the teacher to file a grievance. Okay.