Are teachers underpaid

[dl meckes]

I keep hearing anecdotes about the higher percentage of special needs children in Lakewood schools than in many neighboring districts. These special needs cover a broad spectrum, from having developmental problems to english as a second language.

It would be my assumption, and I'd like to be corrected if misinformed, that these students require teachers with special skills and certifications.

Would the cost of educating special need students tend to skew expenses per student?

Also, as Stephen Davis points out, if we're spending more than other school systems on actual instruction rather than administrative or non-instructional costs, isn't that a good thing?

[William George]

Mr. Davis, as I said in my previous e-mail, I'm not implying anything. Those statistics I provided were to prove the comments Dee made were incorrect. That is it. She said we paid less per student. The reality is we pay more per student. I didn't say that was bad. I just stated a fact. You and Dee accused me of providing false information, which I didn't. It was Dee who provided the false information. Lakewood does an Excellent job controlling Administrative expenses. That is also in our report. We wanted to give credit where credit is due. Of the 17 nearby schools I used, Lakewood ranked 18. They also faired well using the ODE "similar school districts". Please stop trying to read something into my postings that just aren't true. Please stop trying to change my statements of fact into something you construe as being different.

The 5 year budget forecast prepared by the School Board Treasurer indicates that expenses will start to exceed revenue this year. If the current rate of expenses does not change and the revenue does not change, we will be facing a deficit of $16 million by the year 2012 – based on this forecast. The only way to change the revenue is by increasing taxes. Revenue is calculated by taking the County Auditors estimated municipal tax valuation ($976,632,827 as of 12-7-2007) and multiplying it by the approved taxable milage. For each mil increase, revenues increases by $976, 632. So if you needed to generate $16 million, divide $16 MM by $976,632 and you get 16 (rounded down). Due to tax credits, the homeowner only pays 87.5% of the increase. Each 1 mil increase costs the tax payer approximately $30.62 per year per $100,000 in home value. So if you owned a $100,000 home and taxable milage increased by 16, you would have to pay an additional $489 dollars a year in taxes per $100,000 in home valuation.

So, if the status quo prevails and teachers do not give any concessions (annual raises, pay next to nothing for health care, etc.) and expenses remain the same (energy prices freeze, no staff reduction, etc) you are looking at an increase of $489 per $100,000 of home value. Are you ready to pay another $489 a year in property tax? Now, as I said before, this is just an example. Most likely, the proposed milage increase that will be asked for will be much less than 16. That is because in the above assumption we generated $16, 000,000 in the first year. The reality is we would only need small increases each year and not the entire amount the first year. they could also stagger the levies, 8 mil first time and 8 mil second time, 3 years later. But even if it were half, are you ready to pay another $250 a year in taxes per $100,000 of home value home?

I will state again, the above calculation is just a ballpark measurement and is hard to predict for several reasons such as: 1) The ability to make forecasts look better or worse at the prepares choice. Since it is a forecast, the preparer of the forecast can assume any % increase he/she wants, but it doesn’t mean it will increase that much. 2) The reality of municipal tax valuation – who knows how much increase or decrease our property values will have over the next 6 years. According to the Federal Department of Housing, values have increased an average of only 2.5% in Ohio over the last 5 years and actually depreciated over the last 12 months. Cleveland is worse than the Ohio average, but I do not have an exact figure. 3) In the above example, it is highly unlikely that expenses will remain the same. 4) The proper way to calculate the increase would be to do it on an annual basis, you sort of need to back into the number. For example, you need $3 MM the first year, $6 MM the second year, $9 MM the third year etc. 5) I do not know how many teachers are going to retire, how many positions will be filled or left vacant, etc. I do not know which other school buildings will close. I was told by a board member either 1 or 2 buildings will close, but that he was not sure.

I hope this puts it into perspective for you. I will not respond to any accusations that the above example is wrong since I’ve already stated it is just a ballpark. The methodology is correct.

In closing, and as my final statement in this discussion thread, I truly believe no matter what the result of the teacher contract negotiations are that a levy will be needed. And I’m not against a reasonable levy as long as I know the contracts are fair. But basically I don’t want to be asked to pay more money while the teachers enjoy the luxury of paying next to nothing for Health Care benefits. Only 61% of working Americans receive Health Care benefits from their employer. The average cost of health care for those that have benefits is 15% for single and 27% for family. Teachers pay 0% for single and 5% for family. And to get back to teacher pay, the average teacher salary is $63,278 and the median household income for Lakewood residents is somewhere between $40,500 & $48,200 depending on what source you use. This tells me teachers should be able to afford to pay Health Care much easier than the general population.

I would like to thank everyone who particpated in this discussion. It helps me understand concerns and feelings. It's made my skin thicker. Thank you Mr. Davis and Dee. It's good to see people are concerned about what is going on in Lakewood.

[Dee Martinez]

I did take Mr. George up on his advice (I had been using the Ohio Fair Schools site, which makes it easier to compare districts but their data is a bit dated) and checked the CUPP data myself. Turns out theres quite a difference between which year you use.

For FY06, the average teacher salary was indeed $63,000 in Lakewood and $54,000 for "similar districts" Not totally unexplainable because 68% percent of Lakewood teachers had been on the job 10 years or more, compared to 58% in similar districts. I know that some places will fire you once you get to a certain level of service and pay grade but Im not sure we want our schools to be run like Circuit city.

But when you check FY07, things change. Similar districts went up by $1,000 and Lakewood's went DOWN BY $3,000! This in spite of the fact that the percentage of longer term teachers went UP to 71%. In FY07, the "average" Lakewood teacher made slightly less than $61,000 while the average similar district teacher made slightly more than $57,000. Remember that "similar" doesnt mean "neighboring"

I submit and perhaps Mr. Markling can confirm or dispute, that the last of the generation of teachers hired circa 1970 are retiring and being replaced by those hired in 1995-2000, when the FIRST WAVE of 60s-70s hires left. In other words, a true generational shift.

That leaves us with fewer bodies, too. Mr. George proposed cutting bodies. The number of FTEs went from 260 to 250 between FY06 and FY07.

One more tidbit: Lakewood takes in only about $400 more per pupil in LOCAL revenue than similar districts. Similar districts get about $7000 per student from local taxpayers, Lakewood gets about $7400. Next door, Rocky River takes in about $8,800 LOCALLY per student per year.

One other thing I found missing from Mr. George's posts is a grasp of how school funding works, the effects of House Bill 920, etc.

I feel the need to interject that I am NOT a teacher or a school employee nor is any member of my family. A tax increase costs ME money, too. I looked at this issue several years ago, maybe with more of an agnostic point of view than some. What I found is a school district in a very unique circumstance doing a better than credible job. If getting away as cheap as you can is your goal, I guess thats another way to look at it.

[stephen davis]

Those statistics I provided were to prove the comments Dee made were incorrect. That is it. She said we paid less per student. The reality is we pay more per student.

William George,

I don't know Dee Martinez. I am not coming to her defense.

I am still confused by your comments. We may have a higher "Instructional Expenditure as a % of total budget" than many nearby cities, but the overall cost per pupil per year is reportedly lower than many.

Are you and Dee BOTH correct, and BOTH incorrect?

Steve


.

[Dee Martinez]

Those statistics I provided were to prove the comments Dee made were incorrect. That is it. She said we paid less per student. The reality is we pay more per student.

William George,

I don't know Dee Martinez. I am not coming to her defense.

I am still confused by your comments. We may have a higher "Instructional Expenditure as a % of total budget" than many nearby cities, but the overall cost per pupil per year is reportedly lower than many.

Are you and Dee BOTH correct, and BOTH incorrect?

Steve


.

I frantically ran through my posts to see where I said that Lakewood paid "less" on anything. That statement would be pretty indefensible, and if you can show me where I said that, I apologize, profusely, in advance.

In any comparison I made, I said that Lakewood spends "about the average" locally per pupil and in terms of starting teacher salary. I also acknowledged that "average salaries" for Lakewood teachers are higher for reasons specified. However, after running some of the numbers for the county, even that assertion seems a bit in doubt, but I dont want to be accused of cherry picking.

I dont want to ever be "incorrect" and I would much rather remain silent than post something wrong. Its a big question and we need objectivity, not skewing facts to bolster a prejudice.

[stephen davis]

Are you and Dee BOTH correct, and BOTH incorrect?

I dont want to ever be "incorrect"...

Dee,

With regard to you being correct or incorrect, my question to William George was strictly rhetorical, not a judgement of you, or any of your posts.

Steve


.

[Dee Martinez]

Are you and Dee BOTH correct, and BOTH incorrect?

I dont want to ever be "incorrect"...

Dee,

With regard to you being correct or incorrect, my question to William George was strictly rhetorical, not a judgement of you, or any of your posts.

Steve


.

Of course. I totally understand. And I dont want anyone to think that Im playing a game of "gotcha" I just get troubled when I see anyone who starts with a conclusion, then finds facts to support that conclusion. I think we all know what kind of problems that can create.
Beyond that, having spent time with teachers as you have, it bothers me when I see them being pereceved as the problem. The problems are complicated and the solutions will be as well.

I dont know if Mr George was reading the Deck a few months ago when some parents were complaining about class sizes at the new schools. I thought that was selfish and short-sighted and got criticized for that opinion also. The life of a "moderate" sometimes ya just cant win.

Again I look for common ground and solutions. More modest benefits are certainly in the cards. But alas, so is a tax increase. Hopefully that will be modest too.

[William George]

Mr. Davis, Dee said

Lakewood is not spending a particularly high dollar amount per pupil compared to other places nearby.

I replied: Lakewood ranks #2 in "Instructional Expenditure per student". That means we spend more on Salaries per student than 16 of those 17 other districts.

Don't know what else to tell you. Not sure why you are confused.

[stephen davis]

I replied: Lakewood ranks #2 in "Instructional Expenditure per student". That means we spend more on Salaries per student than 16 of those 17 other districts.

And that is significant because.......?


William,

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I sense that you think teacher compensation is too high, based on the ratio of that compensation to other costs.

You seem resistant to other interpretations of that ratio. I assume that IF teacher compensation remained static, and good management of the district caused the "Instructional Expenditure per student" to rise, you would only be more encouraged to seek cuts in teacher compensation.

I totally respect your efforts at data collection, but you're going to have to clearly define your theory, and integrate more data sources into an apples to apples comparison, to be convincing to me.

Convincing me is probably not your goal, but since you have entered this public forum with a position, it is my right to accept or challenge you in my search for truth.

Steve


.

[Ivor Karabatkovic]

"Instructional Expenditure per student"

Do salaries even fall under that category?

I thought that category consists of computers, calculators, pencils, etc.

All I know is that my senior year of High School (2007) teachers received $7.81 (the cents might be a bit off) to spend on school supplies for their classrooms for the entire school year.

[Dee Martinez]

The 5 year budget forecast prepared by the School Board Treasurer indicates that expenses will start to exceed revenue this year. If the current rate of expenses does not change and the revenue does not change, we will be facing a deficit of $16 million by the year 2012 – based on this forecast.

I want to try to make this point very simply. I would also urge Mr. Markling, who used this forum during his campaign to jump in and try to improve on my explanation.

School revenues from property taxes do not grow from year to year, compared to other government entities that get money from income taxes. Income only grows when new levies are issued.

If Mr. George parsed his figures as exhaustively as he claims, he couldn't help but note that the local portion of the schools budget (in dollars, not percentages) has remained basically the same since 2002, when the last levy was passed.

In the first years after a levy schools get an immediate "bump" and that results in a surplus in the early years. As the years pass, as costs go up and revenue stays flat, the balance gradually turns into flat and then a deficit. Lakewood schools are now just about done with the surplus they started building 6 years ago.

In most Ohio school districts, and traditionally in Lakewood, this plays out over a 3 or 4 year cycle. Lakewood has now gone 6 years w/o an increase, so we are doing way better in terms of cost management

Cities, states, and the US rely on inflationary increases to keep up with rising costs. Businesses can always raise prices. Schools in OHio are the only entity that must ask voters for every revenue increase.

I have one thing in common with Mr. George. I have no more to say on this. There are five board members, Jay Foran, and others in the community who are in a better position and have a greater personal stake in this issue than I do. Nobody asked me to do this. I have only posted here in the interest of airing both sides of an argument that a few have brought to the table.

Board members, you are the ones who will be faced with selling any future levies to the public, not me. Your silence is a disappointment to me. you can use this forum as a great chance to educate voters on how the schools actually get funded. Im frankly amazed that none of you have seen fit to defend your stewardship of our money. I dont post on the other local web forum but I do read it from time to time and I havent seen any comment there, either.

Making a case for teachers, as I said, doesnt benefit me personally. If board members or others with a more direct interest in this issue believe its in their interest to use this forum, the time is now. Im done.

[William George]

[William George]

"Instructional Expenditure per student"

Do salaries even fall under that category?

I thought that category consists of computers, calculators, pencils, etc.

All I know is that my senior year of High School (2007) teachers received $7.81 (the cents might be a bit off) to spend on school supplies for their classrooms for the entire school year.

The exact dollar amount showing up in "Instruction Expenditure" on the ODE is the same as the amount showing up in the 5 year budget forecast for Salaries. The School Board Treasurer confirmed this. Yes, it is in the category.

[William George]

I replied: Lakewood ranks #2 in "Instructional Expenditure per student". That means we spend more on Salaries per student than 16 of those 17 other districts.

And that is significant because.......?

It is significant becasue Dee said we don't spend as much as other nearby districts when the fact is we spend more than 16 of those 17 nearby districts. That is it. I was only proving her wrong. Why can't you understand this?

William,

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I sense that you think teacher compensation is too high, based on the ratio of that compensation to other costs.

You seem resistant to other interpretations of that ratio. I assume that IF teacher compensation remained static, and good management of the district caused the "Instructional Expenditure per student" to rise, you would only be more encouraged to seek cuts in teacher compensation.

I totally respect your efforts at data collection, but you're going to have to clearly define your theory, and integrate more data sources into an apples to apples comparison, to be convincing to me.

Convincing me is probably not your goal, but since you have entered this public forum with a position, it is my right to accept or challenge you in my search for truth.

Steve

.

You are clearly missing the point and it sounds as if you haven't even read any of my prior postings. And you are putting words into my mouth. I have taken all kinds of things into consideration when completing my report. It doesn't matter anyway because contracts will be ratified soon. My presentation occured months ago becasue I cared enough to do the research and get involved directly. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, only present the facts to the best of my ability.

Have a nice day.

[Dee Martinez]