The Observation Deck

Bill Call wrote:This levy is needed for one reason and one reason only: 20% payraises promised to school board employees.

Why 20% raises? Why not a wage freeze? Why not a pay cut?

A wage cut for 4 years? Bill, what are you smoking? Are you willing to take a wage cut for 4 years straight?

Bill Call wrote:This is Deja vu all over again. From the five year forecast:

SALARIES AND BENEFITS
57,292,940 2010
67,788,236 2014
10,495,296 18%

PURCHASED SERVICES

13,467,146 2010
16,977,436 2014
3,510,290 26%

If the board estimates:

fewer teachers and
fewer administrators and
fewer students and
retirements of higher priced employees

How do you end up with an 18% increase in labor costs if no one is getting a raise?

The five year forecast is from 2009.

Before teacher cuts were announced.

Before the levy was put on the ballot.

Before the teachers union agreed to a wage freeze.

The 5-year forecast is outdated and stale. In the current environment, it's unreliable and not relevant.

In just about every district I can think of, there are indeed salary steps each year, but I believe that those would be considered to be LONGEVITY steps, and NOT cost-of-living steps (cola) or raises.

As I've indicated before, when a young teacher starts out, I think that even my debating partners on this thread might agree that their pay is relatively abysmal.

Those longevity steps have historically served to equate higher pay with more experience. Teachers are financially encouraged to remain with a district in this way, and a district, in return, gets a relatively real employment bargain for, let's say, about half of a teacher's career. These annual increases pretty much reflect a national practice, and as I've mentioned, are NOT considered to be raises, as each year, theoretically at least, experience HAS to count for SOMETHING, right?

In addition, there often is a separate salary step schedule, so that teachers having greater education will be paid more, too. A PhD, for example, would be paid more than a teacher having a BA.

As many people know, Lakewood's salary schedule is competitively in about the middle of the county's pack. At hiring time, the best new teachers, fresh out of college, will immediately seek out a district having the best possible attractiveness. I would imagine that it would be difficult, even in our current position, to be competitive with the county's "money" districts.

As for Bill's scenario? There's no way that ANY actual salary increase percentage, (be it 3%, 5%, or 400%) could be quoted at this time, because no new negotiations have yet transpired. IF a levy passes, and WHENEVER the collective bargaining round times open again, THEN and ONLY then will those discussions transpire, and there are STRICT labor relations rules governing the conduct of those negotiations, so that the discussions will be fair for all sides.

That's a ways down the road, though. Projections are one thing, whether they might be outdated or not. Reality can be quite another situation in this wild world of ours...

Back to the banjo.

Grace O'Malley wrote:I don't think anyone LIKES to pay more taxes, but there are things I AM willing to pay for, like a good education and health care for all.

My kids went to LHS and loved it. I was happy with the education they received. The teachers were motivating and dedicated. I think Mr Wagner is doing a heck of a job managing the high school.

The least I can do is to put forth an effort to insure that others will have the same experience that my kids did.

I am voting FOR the levy.

Grace thank you. I think that it is easy for people to say they'll vote against the levy after their children have gone through the school system or after their children are grown. I am grateful for those that made it possible for me to get a quality education and I thank those who now support the current group of kids.

We really do have an excellent school district here in Lakewood and the schools are a big reason that many families like myself chose to buy a home here. My hope is that our community continues to support our schools and keep them strong so that our community can continue to be an excellent community.

And Bill you cited the decision to close Grant as one of your reasons to distrust the school board and vote against the levy. I think I made my feelings quite clear about the whole school closing fiasco but as a parent, voter and homeowner I don't think voting down the levy is the proper way to show my distaste for the board's decision. A vote against the levy will only hurt the kids. More cuts will need to be made and the kids will feel that. They will suffer with larger class sizes and fewer opportunities. Voting against the levy will only hurt the kids and send a message that Lakewood is not a good place to live. There are other ways to voice your distrust against the board without diminishing the kids educational opportunities.

Ah, once again we are back to the intimidation of outrageous class sizes and/or diminished academic performance if the levy fails. This veiled treat alone should influence the taxpayers not to vote for the school levy.

It appears that the dissenters have been repeatedly asked for facts by the supporters of the school levy. In retrospect, the supporters have not come up with specific and/or valid reasons why the school district requires this levy. I had an English teacher once tell me if you write fiction don’t pretend it’s a documentary.

Someone tell me exactly how the school levy failing to pass will affect the students. How many teachers will be in jeopardy? What is the average classroom size by grade level at present and after the levy fails? What class subjects will no longer be covered due to lack of funding? What books will not be provided to the students? What sports programs will no longer be available; synchronized swimming, cricket, squash, lacrosse, etc.? The facts, just the facts, I am waiting.

You won't ever get an answer.

The idea of a veiled threat is that each of us will be concerned that some activity we value will be discontinued; that threat is weakened if they let us know the actual consequences. They fear that if they came right out and said that the English classes would no longer cover poetry, a lot of us would view that as not much of a loss and vote no.

And now they have gone beyond threatening to harm the children and are promising that our house values will plummet.

It would be interesting if we had full and accurate figures of the costs of the public schools (including the lost opportunity costs of the underused properties they are hoarding) and the number of students. It might be very feasible to go to a voucher system, and let the parents decide where to have their children schooled. The GI bill works that way, and has served the country well.