The Observation Deck

Bill Call wrote:The levy will pay for future raises and future increases in the cost of benefits.

Bill - Who told you this? Where has this been publicly/officially stated/proposed/written? (just asking; not accusing/arguing)

From a retired teacher, just a few opinionated thoughts here...

1) Although salaries and benefits are certainly a large part of a school district's expenses, no one, whether teachers or classified employees, will get any future increases in those salaries or benefits unless the Board agrees to them in future labor negotiations.

2) Unlike other districts, where labor negotiations have sometimes been extremely confrontational (and ultimately very expensive for all concerned) all sides in Lakewood thus far (and quite fortunately for the District) seem to have really tried to work together. as far as possible. for the benefit of the students. Lakewood has not seen a strike action in many years.

3) In spite of what a few people around here seem to think, it is very possible for an educator to love teaching, care for the students, and also believe in negotiating for the best financial and benefit deals possible through their union.

I find it so hard to believe that in every other sector of the American economy, a person trying to "get a raise" is not considered to be a bad person, but in public eduction, so many people apparently think that teachers should be grateful for whatever crumbs fall their way, and have no right to bargain for more!

Teachers have college and continuing education time and expenses incurred. They work long hours after their work day is concluded. (If you think that you can attentively grade 150 essays during a 40 minute planning time, while planning future lessons, meeting or calling parents, dealing with discipline problems, and coordinating materials, you would be a super-person indeed)

I would only guess that if teachers could charge for every extra hour of their time, a school district would be in for a rude shock.

Salary and benefit increases might or might not be a part of this levy's expenditures, (that's up to the District and the various bargaining units in the future) but so will many other aspects of a public school's expenses.

The return on investment potential of good schools for an inner-ring suburb is incalculable, because without good schools? There goes the neighborhood.

Back to the banjo.

Gary Rice wrote:3) In spite of what a few people around here seem to think, it is very possible for an educator to love teaching, care for the students, and also believe in negotiating for the best financial and benefit deals possible through their union.

I agree with you. If I was a teacher I would fight for raises as much as I could. At the same time sometimes folks have to do with the same rather than getting more, it happens in all professions, why is that so hateful to say to teachers? Teachers are not bad for asking for more, they are just wrong when they claim people saying no are haters and selfish and anti-union and anti-children. I know a lot of people voting against this levy, even some that publicly say they are for it. The fact that people are shamed into silence is terrible. We should be able to have real honest conversations without one side being called anti-children. The fact is that if this levy fails, the same kids will get the same information from the same educators.

Gary Rice wrote:I find it so hard to believe that in every other sector of the American economy, a person trying to "get a raise" is not considered to be a bad person, but in public eduction, so many people apparently think that teachers should be grateful for whatever crumbs fall their way, and have no right to bargain for more!

I am not sure if you ever had to ask for a raise in the private sector. There are a lot of variables that are taken into consideration when a decision is made. If sales are down or other costs are rising than even the best employees sometimes are told to wait, and the worst employees definitely do with the same or even less. When teacher negotiate it is an all or nothing deal, the good and the bad both have to get paid more. In my opinion the entire system needs to be fixed.

I would hope that people would know me well enough to know that I am emphatically NOT one who would be considered to be a name-caller.

There are however, unfortunately, any number of vociferous people out there on just about every side of any issue, if you look hard enough.

I would however, prefer to believe that those people are individuals having their own thoughts, and are not representatives of their movements, whether those would be right, left, up, down or sideways.

At the same time, as far as some remarks that some educators MAY have made, whether one might agree with them or not, please try to understand the bitter struggles that teachers have recently faced in Wisconsin, Ohio, and some other states for their right to collectively bargain. There remains some very strong feelings out there.

There are powerful forces attempting to pull public education in a number of directions, and whenever the ideal of compromise is replaced by oil-and-water posturing, there's going to be conflict.

All of this, of course, has nothing whatsoever to do with this topic...except that....

The timing and nature of this sort of questioning, (as well as it's placement here, rather than in the schools section of this 'Deck) coming as it has, mere weeks before a critical school levy, continues to illustrate that some people apparently still have serious questions, concerns, and perhaps, incomplete information about our schools and teachers.

The fact remains that, (having been in public education's trenches for as long as I have) I feel compelled to take the time to answer just about anything that might be detrimental in any way to the passage of this levy.

It's THAT important.

As far as "waiting for raises" go, I believe that one could easily discover that has indeed been done by teachers and their unions in the past, as times and circumstances have occurred.

Finally, I would hope that there would not be an implied supposition out there that the Lakewood City School District is allowing "bad" teachers in the classroom? I sincerely hope not.

I've heard anti-union arguments many times that unions supposedly protect "bad" teachers or that they supposedly want "equal pay for all" teachers. If those would be anyone's suppositions, let me stop them in their tracks right now.

Firstly, there is an ongoing rigorous evaluation system in place for all teachers. All a union can do is represent a teacher if his or her competency has been challenged, in order to guarantee due process and a fair hearing. Though I've seen the internet horror stories, I've NEVER personally heard of a proven "bad" teacher lasting very long in a school district around here.

As far as equal vs. merit pay goes, many people are surprised that teachers do enjoy merit pay and have done so for many years! Teachers' salaries are based on successful classroom experience, longevity and college work attained. As a teacher, the more you've gone to school, the longer you work, the more successful classroom years you've taught, the more merit there will be in your paycheck!

Some people would like to judge teacher merit in other ways, but bottom line, it has thus far proven very difficult to propose a good non-political, fair and objective merit-pay system, other than the firmly quantifiable means given above, that have already been in place for years.

Please support your Lakewood Schools and the upcoming May levy.

Back to the banjo.

Ryan Salo wrote:
The fact is that if this levy fails, the same kids will get the same information from the same educators.

This statement alone convinces me that you have absolutely no clue about current pedagogy, methodology, or curriculum.

Support the levy!!!

Sandy,

If it is possible for you to educate rather than ridicule, please let me know specifically what the children will lose if the levy fails? I appreciate your help in this matter.

Coming from experience with another school district, I can tell you that the loss of a levy is not unlike this "sequester" business going on right now in Washington. If monies are not found, of course, the schools will go on, but cuts will need to be made somewhere. Whether those would be staff cuts or student services would depend on Board decisions. Sports can become pay-to-play, elective classes can be curtailed, and so on. Schools can be closed and consolidated.

Adding to those cuts of course, will be a broader perception by the community and region that things are going downhill for that district.

In the district where I taught for example, the former junior high/middle schools now serve grades 5-7, with 8-12 now at the high school. Is that the sort of decision that we want for Lakewood?

These are only a few of the possibilities that can transpire when you start cutting funding for the public schools.

Please support your schools. Please vote for our levy.

Back to the banjo.

Ryan Salo wrote:Sandy,

If it is possible for you to educate rather than ridicule, please let me know specifically what the children will lose if the levy fails? I appreciate your help in this matter.

Ryan

I do not have specifics, but I imagine, we will need to cut some teachers making classrooms
even more corded than they are today, which I believe is more crowded than when we went
to school. We will lose more of the little things like books, programs, hours that allow the
teachers to deliver more with less as they have been doing thanks to the state cuts.

But what always really seems to madden you is the contract the teachers have. I would say
this is more on the unions and management, than on the teachers and the students. If this
is there contract, then it is, it has been agreed to, now is time to look at the next contract,
and actually now is not the time, in November would be when we can look at that part of
the equation.

I actually do not know many that are against the levy. Perhaps it is who we talk to. I do
not know anyone afraid to speak up and I know of no one being branded "anti-children"
after all we are not voting for genocide, merely trying to keep our education system as
good as as well funded as we can.

FWIW


.

Peter Grossetti wrote:

Bill Call wrote:The levy will pay for future raises and future increases in the cost of benefits.

Bill - Who told you this? Where has this been publicly/officially stated/proposed/written? (just asking; not accusing/arguing)

According to the most recent five year forecast the district will spend $55.5 million for wages and benefits in 2013. The same forecast anticipates spending $61.7 million in 2017. In a three year period wages and benefits will increase by about $6.2 million PER YEAR.

During the last levy campaign we were told that the money was needed to maintain current services. We later found out that $6 million of that money was used for retirement bonuses. How are students helped when our ex superintendent collects $5 million in retirement benefits?

If you look at the forecast you can see a decline in total expenditures for pay and benefits from the period 2010 to 2012. This is probably the result of the retirement of highly compensated individuals. While retirement bonuses can result in short term savings they result in a near term explosion in expenses. That's what we are seeing in the period from 2014 to 2017 and beyond.

It seems likely that the district will soon be paying more than $30,000 in annual health insurance premiums for the current family plan. Is that what is meant by investing in education?

Cleveland Heights spends about $20,000 per student and gets terrible results. The higher and higher taxes are contributing to accelerating population loss and declining property values. Is that where we are headed?

And now the question that infuriates and angers so many:

Can we do better?

And the question that turns people blue with rage:

Why isn't $250,000 per classroom enough?

Bill Call wrote:According to the most recent five year forecast the district will spend $55.5 million for wages and benefits in 2013. The same forecast anticipates spending $61.7 million in 2017. In a three year period wages and benefits will increase by about $6.2 million PER YEAR.

During the last levy campaign we were told that the money was needed to maintain current services. We later found out that $6 million of that money was used for retirement bonuses. How are students helped when our ex superintendent collects $5 million in retirement benefits?

Bill

Again these is according to contracts not the students. The students have very little to do
with the contracts. Well actually nothing. Had nothing been voted on the above statement
would still have happened, only we would not have been able to do as well as we have been.

I would have imagined they would have asked for much more if they knew the Republican
Governor was going to work overtime cutting another $5 million+ from our budget. That
way we could have adsorbed both losses.

Of course this works nicely with a larger plan from the right to privatize our educational
system for the benefits of a few in that business. Hmmmmmm wonder who they support
for elections?

The problem no one seems to understand is even if the board had stolen the entire budget
of the school system, something they would never do, the schools still need he money, and
they would still be accountable.

Why is it that "Rs" seem unwilling to understand this simple FACT.

Bill Call wrote:Cleveland Heights spends about $20,000 per student and gets terrible results. The higher and higher taxes are contributing to accelerating population loss and declining property values. Is that where we are headed?

Can we do better?

Can we do better is a legitimate question. However it needs to be asked at the right time
and in proper context.

The people are not leaving Cleveland Heights because of the taxes, or the schools. Far from
it according to the Heights Observer, and my friends that live there. What they are getting
upset and leaving over is a cut in city services, which is what Lakewood continues to do.

.

Jim,

Thank you for your perspective. I am not anti teachers nor anti children. I just want to make sure that we spend money the best that we can. I have been emailing Mr. Patterson and Mr. Penton over the past few weeks requesting different information. I have also been reflecting on my experiences with the school district both as a parent and as a student years ago. For the most part we have an amazing group of teachers and administrators doing their best to educate the children in the city. Their job is getting more and more challenging with state and federal requirements and with more and more esl children and kids without any parental involvement. I honestly (obviously based on my questions) was heavily leaning towards voting against the levy. My perspective was that we need to reign in labor costs, which I believe we need to do. According to Jeff Patterson the teachers have taken a pay freeze for 3 of the last 4 years and they are paying for more of their benefits. The district has also let 80 employees go so far in the past few years. Thankfully the remaining staff has done a wonderful job making up for the loses. I now agree with you Jim that this levy is not where we should pick a fight. We need to really apply pressure when we negotiate the 2014/2015+ contracts.

The bottom line is we are in a contract already with the teachers, any additional cuts will directly affect the students. They may still get the core items, but all of the extras are what make the lakewood schools so amazing. I support this levy.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:
I would have imagined they would have asked for much more if they knew the Republican
Governor was going to work overtime cutting another $5 million+ from our budget. That
way we could have adsorbed both losses.

According to the 5 year forecast State financing was:

$17,857,292 in 2010
17,634,544 in 2013

and is projected to be $17,634,544 in years 2014, 2015, 2016.

If the district lost $5 million in funding shouldn't that be reflected in the forecast?

If the cost of health insurance for a family plan ends up being $40,000 per year in 2017 how will that improve the quality of the schools?

Bill Call wrote:

Jim O'Bryan wrote:
I would have imagined they would have asked for much more if they knew the Republican
Governor was going to work overtime cutting another $5 million+ from our budget. That
way we could have adsorbed both losses.

According to the 5 year forecast State financing was:

$17,857,292 in 2010
17,634,544 in 2013

and is projected to be $17,634,544 in years 2014, 2015, 2016.

If the district lost $5 million in funding shouldn't that be reflected in the forecast?

If the cost of health insurance for a family plan ends up being $40,000 per year in 2017 how will that improve the quality of the schools?

Ryan

You also have the unique perspective of being the son of a Lakewood teacher, who is
getting a pension. Perhaps you should ask him if we should cut his benefits?

Bill

I find it pointless to debate projections, and forecasts. At best they are fantasy.

As for the health care question. I have to think anyone can do a better job when not
worried about going broke over something as simple as a paper cut that gets infected. I
have to think the average parent would certainly be able to concentrate on work better
knowing their kids are cared for. This would be true for teachers, and others.

Funny, something coming out of ObamaCare while talking with a doctor that had
switched from treatments to genetics, and the ability to cure and treat problems. His
comment was, "With Obamacare the emphasis is no longer on treatment, but on curing
problems long term. If a hospital gets no more per patient than X dollars, then why have
them coming back again and again. You will see a much bigger push on cures and quick
sure fire cures in the coming years."

FWIW


.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:Funny, something coming out of ObamaCare while talking with a doctor that had
switched from treatments to genetics, and the ability to cure and treat problems. His
comment was, "With Obamacare the emphasis is no longer on treatment, but on curing
problems long term. If a hospital gets no more per patient than X dollars, then why have
them coming back again and again. You will see a much bigger push on cures and quick
sure fire cures in the coming years."

Actually it's Obamacare that is driving the huge increases in premiums.

Anyway, the explosive growth in the cost of 0 copay and 0 deductible health insurance and the unfunded pension liabilities is driving the explosive growth in spending over the near term. Obamacare will require big penalties for those expensive health plans that will drive a demand for higher wages which will put the system under even more financial stress.

We are witnessing a slow motion train wreck.

There are two kinds of blindness; the blindness of those who see what is not there and the blindness of those who do not see what is there.

Our school board suffers from a little of both.

If taxes are raised on the residents of Lakewood to pay for higher wages for the people of Westlake are the people of Lakewood accepting a pay cut?

Ryan Salo wrote:I have been emailing Mr. Patterson and Mr. Penton over the past few weeks requesting different information.

Ryan,

Thanks for reaching out.

Superintendent Patterson and Treasurer Penton are class acts.

They do not hide the ball and are both proud to share information about the excellent work of the Lakewood City Schools.

Matt