Previously I posted the Whitehall teachers contract online here. Today, I thought I would give my analysis of it.
Overall I believe the contract is fair but it could be improved. The problem that I have had with the district does not involve the teachers contract but revolves around the yearly budgets being padded and the excess being put into reserve accounts only to be spent later. The taxpayer is simply viewed as a deep pocketed dupe and never are any excesses returned in the form of lower taxes or lower budgets the following year. When coupled with falling enrollments, even in a year where there are no tax increases, per-pupil spending rises.
I have always had the utmost respect for teachers. It is more work than most people realize and the pressures to deal with students and parents can be overwhelming at times. Students have a lot of energy and teachers deserve our appreciation and support.
I’ve compared the Whitehall teachers contract to those in nearby districts and I would say it compares relatively favorably to those of nearby districts. Some districts have higher starting salaries than Whitehall but lower ending salaries after many years of service. However, while the current teacher’s contract is not extravagant, it is generous and it is certainly not frugal.
The original teacher’s contract was from June 1, 2005 to June 30, 2009 and the agreement was extended with a memorandum of agreement from July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2011.
The biggest thing I noticed is that there is no anti-nepotism language or policy in effect. This allows for all types of inter-connectiveness in the hiring and staffing of positions. Almost all districts are moving to these types of policies to prevent relatives from hiring and recommending other relatives. Whitehall has been criticized in the past as being a “good old boys network”. This type of language and/or policy would go a long way in blunting this type of criticism.
The second thing I noticed is that in the first agreement the percentage the school district was paying for medical, surgical, hospital, and dental costs for the teachers was declining.
2005-06 – 92%
2006-07 – 91%
2007-08 – 90%
2008-09 – 89%
However, in the extension (for the next two years) the percentage goes up.
2009-10 – 90%
2010-11 – 90%
This seems a bit odd in so far as the teachers had already agreed to lowering this percentage and it appears to be a major concession on the part of the District. It would seem that with a concession such as this, the District would ask for other concessions in return.
However, the district agreed to 4% annual increases for the next two years in the memorandum (July 1, 2009 – June 30, 2011) which seem exceeding generous in these bad economic times.
I was also a bit surprised at the amount of compensation being paid to club moderators and team coaches. The athletic director’s salary was increased 33% from the original agreement to the memorandum for the next two years (July 1, 2009 – June 30, 2011).
One criticism that I have heard repeatedly is that the school system needs to do more to crack down on unruly or misbehaving students. The one policy that has been shown to work and which many private schools use is academic, behavioral and/or attendance probation. This denies students the ability to participate in interscholastic or after-school activities who are failing, exhibit behavioral problems and/or who refuse to attend school regularly.
However if the teacher’s union views these clubs as a quick source of extra cash, there is no incentive to crack down and discipline students. You have a cycle where misbehaving students are needed for clubs so that a moderator can collect extra income.
Finally the number of clubs and paid positions should be evaluated in light of Whitehall’s falling enrollment. Hopefully the school board and the teachers will realize these types of positions are funded by hard-earned taxpayer dollars and that not everyone can afford these types of increases and that if the district doesn’t have an academic, behavioral and/or attendance probation policy it will continue to have disciplinary problems.
Hopefully the Board will think carefully about these types of increases and policies as they negotiate the next contract. Until they are able to reduce taxes and spending, I’m afraid Whitehall will continue to suffer from continued declines in enrollment, population and business as it has experienced over the last 15 years.
I believe the biggest problem the taxpayers face is the continued overcharging of the taxpayers by the district to fund reserve accounts which are earmarked for future building projects. These make little or no sense in a district which is losing students and population. What’s the point of having a new school and no people left in the Town?