PSERS Story from Tribune-Review

The Tribune-Review had a nice article on the PSERS issues that will be hitting school districts and residents across the state.

The article is below and can be found here.

Teacher pension 'tsunami' expected across Pennsylvania

Tools Print this article E-mail this article Subscribe to this paper Larger text | Smaller text

By Rick Wills
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Sunday, May 3, 2009

Buzz up!

This year, the Pine-Richland School district is contributing $900,000 to state's teacher pension fund.

Three years from now -- and for many years thereafter -- the district expects to pay roughly $7 million annually into the Pennsylvania Public School Employees' Retirement System, known as PSERS.

The dilemma facing Pine-Richland faces each of the state's 501 school districts. A bubble in the number of teachers expected to retire in the next decade and a 30 percent drop in the total value of the fund's assets last year in the souring economy means districts contribute more to the teachers' retirement fund.

School officials in turn are predicting almost certain property tax hikes at a time when many Pennsylvanians have watched the recession slash their 401(k) accounts in half or force their companies to end pension plans entirely.

"This is a financial tsunami, and doing something now does not mean significant relief for years or decades. It's one ugly scenario," said Jay Himes, executive director of the Pennsylvania Association of School Business Officials.

Teacher retirement benefits are mandated by law. Courts have ruled they cannot be reduced for current teachers or state employees covered under similar retirement plans.

"I'm worried about this, even now," said Stephen Hawbaker, president of the Pine-Richland school board.

Starting in the 2012-13 school year, when retirements are expected to accelerate, school districts and the state will have to pay an additional $2.5 billion annually into the fund, according to the Association of School Business Officials.

The fund collects from 273,000 active members and pays pensions to 174,000 retirees. It was valued at $67.2 billion in 2007. That dropped to $45.4 billion at the end of December.

Jude Abraham, business manager at the Hempfield Area School District, Westmoreland County's largest, anticipates that by 2012, the district will be paying $5 million more than the $2.5 million it pays now. The district's budget is about $80 million.

"Many districts are using reserve funds to try to plan for this. But taxes will have to go up to compensate for this," he said.

The state Legislature sets the contribution rates from teachers and school districts. School employees, including teachers, pay between 6 percent and 7.5 percent of their salaries into the pension fund. The state and school districts pay a combined 4.76 percent of a teacher's salary into the fund.

In the Hampton School District, payments this year are $510,000 -- an expense business manager Jeff Kline estimates will be $2 million by 2012.

"It's hard enough to balance a budget, and we have no control over this spending. The contributions are set by the state," Kline said.

While poor financial market conditions are the immediate cause of the problem, Timothy Potts of Democracy Rising, a nonpartisan citizens group, lays blame with lawmakers.

"The Legislature always prefers to have someone else raise taxes, which school boards will now be forced to do," said Potts, who is a member of the Carlisle Area school board in Cumberland County.

Pittsburgh Public Schools, the largest district in the county, has 2,700 teachers and full-time professionals. Chris Berdnik, chief financial officer and chief operations officer, estimates that contributions to the pension fund will rise from $10.08 million this year to $33.18 million in the 2012 school year.

"The PSERS funding crisis as one of the most significant challenges we face in the next decade," he said.

"The PSERS funding crisis as one of the most significant challenges we face in the next decade," he said.

In 2001, lawmakers increased their pension benefits by 50 percent and, at the same time, boosted teachers' and state workers pensions by 25 percent.

But the Legislature didn't require a corresponding increase in contributions from school districts, says Wythe Keever, a spokesman for the Pennsylvania State Education Association, the state's largest teachers' union.

"The districts, in the latter part of '90s and in the early part of this decade basically took a pension holiday. They did not pay enough to sustain the system during the down years," Keever said.

In 2002, for instance, contributions from school districts in the state were $539,000, Keever said. The same year, the state contributed $662 million.

Contributions generally have been based on the assumption that the stock market will go up 8 percent on average each year. During much of the 1990s and the early part of this decade, the fund generated double-digit returns.

"Earnings were very high until about a year ago," said Rep. David Levdansky, an Elizabeth Democrat who chairs the House Finance Committee.

Levdansky favors setting minimum contributions from teachers, districts and the state that would be required even if the stock market does well.

"I wish we had done that. We would not be in this kind of trouble if we had," he said.

Rep. Paul Clymer, a Bucks County Republican and ranking member of the House Education Committee, said legislators are looking at whether federal stimulus money can be contributed to the pension plan. Clymer has introduced a bill that would push state and school contributions to 7 percent immediately.

"That at least would be somewhat of a cushion for the future," he said.

But school districts remain in a tight spot.

"The market has changed and has caught up with the rest of the world, but raising taxes is really the last thing we want to do," said Jon Rupert, business manger of the Highlands School District In Natrona Heights.

Rick Wills can be reached at rwills@tribweb.com or 412-320-7944.
Back to headlines

With the recent uptick in the markets, the situation has improved somewhat. It is just hard to say by how much.

Thanks for reading.

James

Allegheny County Must Reassess

The State Supreme Court handed down its decision on the Onorato base year plan. The "base year" is simply a way to say that all property values will be frozen at a value of a specific year. In the case of Allegheny County, we have been frozen with a 2002 Base Year.

What the Supreme Court essentially said is that it is fine to use a base year, but because property values change over time, it is unfair to never reassess. If a county does not reassess then property taxes are not equal even perhaps among neighbors.

You can see the Post-Gazette article here.

Without saying what I think of the Onorato plan, I do believe him when he says that he does not want to raise the property taxes in Allegheny County. He has higher ambitions than to be a County Executive. He will do what he has to do to make sure he keeps that promise. As Onorato says in his article, he does have options. The Court did not order an immediate reassessment and even if it did, that doesn't mean that Onorato would be forced to have taxes paid on 100% of assessed value.

My expectation is that Onorato will either delay the reassessment until he is out of office or that, if he is forced to reassess, he will implement a base year with a percentage of assessed value to be taxed. This might mean higher assessed values overall, we simply would not be taxed at the county level at 100% of assesed value. I just think this issue is one that he will refuse to lose.

I came across an interesting article from 2002 that points out some differences in the way Allegheny County and Butler County do property taxes. You can view it here.

What does any of this mean for your local real estate tax? Nothing yet. Remember in 2000 that when the taxation rate changed (from 25% of assessed value to 100%), the District was forced to reduce the associated millage rate so that they would not receive a revenue windfall. I suspect something like that will take place again.

Thanks for reading.

James

Pension Liabilities in the News Again

You may have heard the story about a year ago regarding the City of Vallejo, California filing for bankruptcy protection due to ever increasing contractual obligations including employee contracts and pension costs. A judge recently held that this bankruptcy allowed the City to void its existing union contracts. Today, I woke up to find a story about Pacific Grove, California and its long walk down the same plank. As the article starts out, "Bankruptcy, its not just for banks and auto manufacturers anymore".

Local Government Agencies across California are going to be coming to the same realization that Pacific Grove and Vallejo did. The article goes on to say the following:

The city has been struggling with how to bring its pension costs to CalPERS under control in light of the economic recession. The state pension program relies on investment income to fund benefits and, when these funds fall short, cities and other public agencies enrolled in CalPERS must take up the slack.

That excerpt is why I bring this topic up here. School Districts across this state are looking out to 2012 when PSERS has its contribution rate spike. PSERS is very much the same as CalPERS (and most other pension plans for that matter). It relies heavily on investment earnings and income for payouts to retirees. I have heard directors across the state say that this increase will cripple their budget for years to come. A school district cannot have a 250% increase in an already large expense and not expect it to have serious consequences on the way it either a) educate the children or b) tax the community.

It is important for people all across Pennsylvania to contact their state representatives (Senator John Pippy and Representive Matt Smith) to tell them that they need to do everything they can to help school districts avoid the same fate as Vallejo and Pacific Grove.

Our District is poised to start planning for this pension spike this year. There are some options on the table. We are looking at a possible $1 million surplus from the 2008-2009 school year. We have the opportunity to set that money aside to even out the rise in taxes to pay for the 2012 pension increase. Instead of there being a 3 mill increase in 2012, there might be a 1.5 mill increase instead. Then the following year you would see the other 1.5 mill increase (or some other "stepped" schedule depending on what this Board does). Setting aside $1 million for this will not reduce the ultimate expense, it simply delays when it fully hits the taxpayers. The math is pretty simple. $1 million equals .5 mills. So setting aside this money will save the taxpayers in one year $100 on a $200,000 house.

I recommended to the Board that we use that money to fund projects that we know are going to happen in order to reduce millage for the next 25 years instead of manufacturing a stepped increase in taxes. We know we will be spending millions of dollars on a high school project on which we will be paying maybe 5% interest. Taking $1 million today and investing the money in the down payment on that project would reduce the eventual loan amount by $1 million and therefore reduce the millage rate in this district for the next 25 years. Over the life of a 25 year loan, this investment would save taxpayers over $1.86 million. After a 15% state reimbursement, that investment would save the district approximately $75,000/yr. While this is not a whole lot of money, its important to note that if the District keeps making fiscally responsible decisions like this then over the years the numbers start to add up.

I have made my point to the Board but will most likely be outvoted. I just wish we could stop looking at the near term results as opposed to the long-term effects of our decisions. The millage will be higher in 2014 under scenario 1 than it would be under the second scenario. That is a fact and is undisputed. The issue is whether or not the Board wants to implement a stepped increase for the pension liability rather than have a huge increase in taxes to pay for the rate spike. Nothing we do can reduce our eventual expense to PSERS. Without a change from our state government, we can only delay the inevitable expense.

Thanks for reading.

James

Recent Almanac Textbook Article

The Almanac has the following story:

Science textbook questioned

By Bob Williams
Staff Writer
bwilliams@thealmanac.net

At the recent Mt. Lebanon school board meeting, at least two directors were also curious about an item near the bottom of the agenda--a student textbook on the 2009-2010 recommended book list.

"Dire predictions: Understanding Global Warming--The Illustrated Guide to the Findings of the IPCC" by Michael E. Mann and Lee R. Kump was recommended for a high school environmental geoscience class. The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

By law, the school board is required to approve all student texts. There are seven books on the list. Board members Mark Hart and James Fraasch, however, questioned this book selection.

"Why is this on the list?" Hart asked. "And is there another book used in the class which shows the other side-that science is not in complete agreement about global warming?"

"I'd like to see what other materials are used in this class," Fraasch said. "If you research Michael Mann, you will find there is not complete agreement about his theories."

Superintendent John Allison said this text is one of three used as supplemental material in the class. The others are "Keeping Things Whole" by Chrispin Tickell, and "Environmental Science" by Kaufmann & Cleveland, Allison said.

"The students source different points of view, including some from the Internet, with a goal of formulating their own concepts," Allison said. "These books are not the entire curriculum.

The district utilizes a book selection process, Allison said. Books are requested by teachers. The submissions are evaluated by a review committee made up of teachers. The recommendations are then submitted to the administration, which reviews them and passes the list on to the school board for approval. Once the list is presented to the board, it is open to public inspection for 30 days before final approval by the board.

In1999, Mann, a University of Virginia Climatology Professor wrote a paper which featured a 1,000-year study of temperature change. The scientific community dubbed it a "hockey stick graph," because Mann's diagram showed a sharp increase in temperatures from 1900 to 2000. Vice-President Al Gore referenced Mann's work in his movie "An Inconvenient Truth."

Since that time, however, other scientists have disputed Mann's initial findings on global warming.

Hart said that science is not in agreement about global warming, and he supports balance texts from authors who challenge global warming theories.

I was quoted correctly here. I simply want to ensure that we are doing our best to turn our quality critical thinkers. I would not be doing my job as a school board member if I did not question whether both sides to this argument are being presented to our students.

I would never ask that we NOT allow our students to read the IPCC report, quite the contrary. Its simply that if they read this report it ought to be balanced with research that would show that man-made global warming theories are the topic of intense scientific debate at the moment. If we only present one side of this argument then it becomes a politically charged issue.

I am not going to debate the topic of global warming with anyone. Someone who is a believer can send me a thousand links to articles that proves the existence of man-made global warming. Others who do not believe can link up to a thousand articles that show that global warming is a natural occurrence. Nobody wins those arguments. The fact is, there is debate about the causes and effects of climate change and our students ought to be learning about this topic from more than one angle. That is all I am trying to do.

Thanks for reading.

James

Board Meeting on Monday April 6th

I want to give a heads on on the meeting date for April. Because of the way Pennsylvania law deals with timelines and passing of school budgets, the Board needs to have its discussion and voting meetings on the 1st and 2nd Monday of April.

On Monday's agenda you can see that we again will be talking about the budget. See my initial impressions in my last post here. I am sure we will talk more about any staff changes that can contribute to lessening the millage impact of this budget.

There was an interesting article in The Almanac about the Board addressing a five year budget plan. The last two years I had requested this long term planning as a tool for the Board to use to see the impact that decisions made today have on the future millage in our budget. Here is an excerpt:

Klein gave board members a five-year forecast which projects trends in expenses though the 2014-2015 school year. Given a 3-4 percent increase in salaries each year, an 8% increase in medical, no changes in county assessments, $117 million debt on the new high school and changes in PSERS, the district's millage rate would go from 23.81 in 2008-2009 to 37.13 in 2014-2015

Ms. Klein does make the point that this is a just a forecast and the numbers will no doubt change. The "worst case scenario" budget would result in a 55% increase in real estate taxes in Mt Lebanon. However, that worst case scenario budget is only referred to as a worst case for PSERS, not high school construction costs, salary increases, health care increases, etc. And to be perfectly honest, PSERS banking on an 8% rate of return on their investments going forward makes it so this actually isn't a worst case scenario at all. On the brighter side, given the rise in the stock markets the last month, the PSERS contribution rate may be all the way back down to where it was in December. This would still be a 250% increase the contribution rate.

The Board will also be discussing what to do with a projected surplus from the 2008-2009 budget. Once we get more accurate and final numbers from the Earned Income Tax part of our budget for this year we should have a better idea about what this number might be. Today it stands at around $1 million. Last year we had a surplus that was due largely to liened taxes being collected and a reassessment of the Galleria. This year our surplus is due more to the efforts of the Superintendent restraining spending during the school year. The question of what to do with our surplus will undoubtedly come up. I think everyone on the Board wants to put this money towards some future expense. The discussion will most likely revolve around what expense it should be. I am hopeful that we will put it towards something that will reduce future millage.

Of additional note, there is a discussion item on the agenda dealing with expanding the District's lunch program to all the elementary school's. While this item clearly does not get the attention of passing budgets or Graduation Competency Exams, it is still an important change in the way we do business.

We are chock full of meetings the next two months. Below is the schedule:

April 13, 2009 – 7:00 p.m. Focus on Instruction - Math
Mt. Lebanon High School Library

April 13, 2009 – 7:30 p.m. Regular Meeting
Mt. Lebanon High School Library

April 14, 2009 – 7:30 p.m. Policy Committee Meeting
Conference Room B, Mt. Lebanon High School

April 16, 2009 – 7:00 p.m. Audit & Finance Committee Meeting
Conference Room B, Mt. Lebanon High School

May 5, 2009 – 7:30 p.m. Policy Committee Meeting
Conference Room B, Mt. Lebanon High School

May 11, 2009 – 7:30 p.m. Discussion Meeting
Mt. Lebanon High School Library

May 14, 2009 – 7:00 p.m. Audit & Finance Committee Meeting
Mt. Lebanon High School Library

May 18, 2009 – 7:00 p.m. Focus on Instruction – Distance Learning
Mt. Lebanon High School Library

May 18, 2009 – 7:30 p.m. Regular Meeting
Mt. Lebanon High School Library

2009-2010 Budget First Impressions

The Audit/Finance Committee continued its meetings about the 09-10 budget this past Monday. The process is a bit different than you may have seen in the past and I do like it better than how we approached the budget last year. Just in case you don't get enough of us on the Board, the Committee meetings are now being televised. This will continue to be the case until we pass the budget.

Most of the budget documents from Monday's meeting can be found at the District website at http://www.mtlsd.org/district/budget/budgetmeetingdocuments.asp. If you are going to read through this post then I would suggest having a window open with the 5-Year forecast of budgeted expenditures. To me, this is the place we need to start. As I have said in the past, I am not a fan of budgeting only for THIS year. We need to budget for this year while seeing what kind of impact the budget will have on taxpayers in future years. In some instances, having a zero mill increase today will result in a much higher mill increase in a future budget. In fact, in this budget I can already see some discussion happening with how to approach the looming teacher pension problem and I believe that there will be some disagreement on how to plan for that huge spike in expense.

In February, I had put together my own five year projection and it was good to see some of the numbers confirmed by finance director Jan Klein's forecast. For example, in my budget for 2012-2013 I had a $46,437,088 expense line for teacher salaries. Ms. Klein shows $46,647,820. I hadn't talked to Ms. Klein about salary growth rates but understanding what our teacher contract looks like and what our other obligations are, there are some numbers that just make sense. Teacher salaries expense is one such number and since it makes up more than 50% of our total expenditures, its an important number to get a handle on.

I want to take a broad view of the forecast for now. You can see on the five year forecast what assumptions are being made. They include the following:

1) Salary expense increases of 3.4% per year with no changes in staffing levels. This makes sense in that our teacher contract dictates what future obligations we have with regard to salaries. I am certain this Board will take up the issue of staffing levels before this budget passes.
2) 8% increases in medical expenses- Given historical patterns this makes sense. However, it is a good idea to keep on your radar the idea of a statewide teacher health insurance program. Governor Rendell has talked about that for awhile. At best it will reduce healthcare costs and not eliminate them.
3) No money set aside for retiree health care. You may remember last year that we took some surplus money and decided to allocate it towards funding an OPEB trust. This trust was to put aside some money to address a large retiree health care liability that the District has. Deciding not to set more money aside now means that it will simply be pushed to the future.
4) No change in real estate assessments. Honestly, if you have any idea whatsoever what our assessed valuations will be over the next 3-5 years, please let me know. What I do know is that when we changed the way we taxed people in 2002 to be for the full home value as opposed to a percentage value, the District was forced to change millage in kind so as not to receive a windfall of property tax revenues. My best guess says that this will again be the case. No matter what the assessed valuation changes to, the District will again be asked not to make a mint off that change. In both Ms. Klein's forecast and the one I put together, we kept the assessed valuation the same for the length of the forecast.
5) $117 Million for High School Construction.
6) 30% loss in PSERS investments for 2008-2009. This expense right here is the one that has me scared the most. I posted about the 250% increase in PSERS contribution rates in December. Since then, the contribution rate has jumped even further due to stock market losses. PSERS right now is projecting a 30% loss on investments for 2008-2009 (their year end is June 30, 2009). They are then projecting 8% returns (down from 8.5%) in future years. Listen, if you could guarantee me 8% returns for the rest of my life, sign me up. Having been a financial planner, I know good numbers when I see them. How many of you would ditch your 401k investments today for an 8% return going forward? How does PSERS expect to do this with a 10-year average return of 4.5%, a 5 year return of 3.88%, and a 1 year return of -1.88%? Understanding that past performance is no indication of future results, banking on an 8% return in an environment like this is probably not the right thing to do.

Given all the above information and seeing that our revenues (which the Committee went over last month) are largely driven by our millage rate, state reimbursement rates, and earned income taxes, the five-year forecast show some interesting things.

First, the high school project in this forecast is phased in over a few years. This results in millage increases in 2010-2011 (2.68 mills), 2011-2012 (1.59), and 2012-2013 (about 4.17). These millage increases are not due entirely to the project but are largely a result of the debt needed to finance the project. You can see on the Transfer-Debt Svs/Capital Fund line how the debt service number keeps creeping up until 2012-2013.

Second, the pension obligations rear their head in 2012-2013. This is illustrated by the almost $10,000,000 increase in the Fringe Benefits section of the budget. Given that 1 mill equals about $2 million in revenue, this spike alone will result in a significant millage increase for the District. Under current law, the State reimuburses us for half of our pension contribution payments. This is why you see the revenue from the state increase the same year by $4.5 million. Between the pension spike and the high school debt, the 2012-2013 budget is projected to result in a 4.17 mill increase.

In the end, you can see that the millage is forecast to be 37.13 in 2014-2015. Today your millage rate is 24.81. This forecast shows what might shape up to be a near 50% increase in property taxes.

Before you step to the edge of that cliff or put your home on the market, please understand that there are Districts across this state that will be in a very similar boat to Mt Lebanon. The pension liability problem is about as big a financial problem as we can have. Other districts are dealing with it in their own ways. Upper St Clair has made their financial forecast available to its residents. Since it is a public document and was forwarded to me by a resident of USC, I have posted a link to it here. Their forecast is not quite as dire as ours but I do not believe at the time it was published that it included the new renovations they are now talking about. At least those renovations are not included in the expense assumptions outlined in the presentation.

This forecast, and the one I had in mind last year, are what convinced me that moving ahead with a high school project in this environment would not be the most fiscally sound decision. Until we can put a five year forecast in place that does not result in such a large financial burden being pushed onto our taxpayers, I am reluctant to spend anywhere near $100 million. Our budget is not just about the high school project. It is about how we educate our kids, how we prioritize the use of taxpayers funds, and how we plan for our future. We don't have the ability to run a deficit budget to "invest" in things by borrowing money like our federal government does (nor do I want that ability). Every taxpayer dollar matters. A potential 50% increase in property taxes over five years should give everyone pause.

I'll post more next week.

Thanks for reading.

James

Taking Issue with the PSBA

Let me reiterate here that the opinions below are my own and may not reflect the opinions of other members of the Board.

From the PSBA website:

Tim Allwein, PSBA Governmental & Member Relations

The Pennsylvania School Boards Association today announced agreement with the Pennsylvania Department of Education and the State Board of Education over the issue of graduation requirements. The agreement on new language proposed by the parties is an attempt to reach consensus on what has been a divisive issue within the basic education community for almost two years. The plan replaces a controversial proposal for graduation competency assessments and preserves broad local testing authority.

Under the new proposal, the state tests, known now as Keystone Exams, would be strictly optional for all school districts. Districts would be required to use only one of the following as graduation requirements: the results of the 11th-grade Pennsylvania System of State Assessment test, the Keystone Exams, aligned local assessments or International Baccalaureate or Advanced Placement tests. Consequently, the only mandated assessments would be the PSSA, because it is the designated state assessment for No Child Left Behind Act purposes, and the graduation requirement the school district chooses.

After all the research and data questioning the use of high stakes exams to determine the graduation readiness of students, the PSBA seems to have switched course here and now believes it is OK to use the PSSA, IB, or AP exams to do just that- as long as the option for local assessments is maintained. The PSBA says the new agreement is optional to local school districts. However, read on from the same press release (emphasis below is mine):

The new language also ensures that a local assessment option is still available for school district use and makes major changes regarding the development and implementation of those tests.

For the first time, the Department of Education would have to provide technical guidance in the development of local assessments to any school district that requests it. Also, local assessments would have to be validated but, unlike the GCA proposal that places the entire cost on school boards, this agreement provides that validation costs will be shared equally by PDE and districts. Also, local assessments would be allowed to include various strategies, such as portfolios, student work, teacher-developed tests and other alternatives, as well as pencil-and-paper standardized tests.

The new proposal also creates a Local Assessment Validation Committee, with representation from the state and from PSBA for the purposes of determining the process and criteria for validation of local assessments and for determining the qualifications for approved validation entities.

Those paragraphs don't make keeping your local assessments as they are "optional". Instead it sounds like more intrusion into the rights of local governments. Even if you are proven to have satisfactory graduation assessments, your school district will still need to get validated at a cost that will be split between local taxpayers and the State. Your graduation requirements will be subject to approval by this Local Assessment Validation Committee- or more likely, they will have to conform to the standards set by this committee.

I have been keeping up to date on the PSBA on what they have been saying for the past year on the GCA's. Here are some quotes from them over the past year:

PSBA Comments on Regulations to 22 PA Chapter 4:

PSBA believes that proponents of the proposal assert that change is needed because the current graduation assessments being used by school districts lack rigor and do not adequately measure a student’s proficiency in the state’s academic standards. PSBA strongly refutes this assertion, because there is nothing to prove its validity and because results from a PSBA survey on such assessments show that school districts are indeed following the intent of the current regulations in a variety of ways.

Additionally, PSBA believes that the GCA proposal infringes on areas that traditionally have been areas of local control, will be harmful to students and will result in significant costs to school districts and the commonwealth.

Here is a second nugget:

Tim Allwein- Are graduation competency assessments necessary?

Both the proponents and opponents of the current GCA proposal are united in their desire for a system that ensures that students graduate from high school proficient in Pennsylvania’s academic standards. Proponents believe that the only way to ensure this is through state tests – either the PSSA or the GCAs. Opponents, including PSBA, believe that a system that allows local tests aligned to the state academic standards and the PSSA can meet this requirement. PSBA is not convinced that the discrepancies shown by the proponents that more students are graduating without scoring proficient on the PSSA point to a deficiency in local assessments.

In unity with he PSBA, school districts across this state passed resolutions opposing high school exit exams. Mt Lebanon passed its resolution in February 2008. You can see that document here.

Personally, I am opposed to the agreement based on the following:

1) Costs, while shared between the PDE and the District, are unknown. Additionally, if you are in a school district that by all accounts is graduating college ready students, then why incur the cost at all?

2) Pencil and paper tests should never be the determining factor in a student's readiness. While Mt Lebanon may "opt out" of the optional Keystone Exams, the fact remains that many school districts will take this route. The PSBA and others have cited numerous research articles that suggest high-stakes exams are not the way to go to determine college readiness.

3) The new agreement still infringes on local control of education even if a school district wants to opt of the Keystone Exams. This agreement makes it more likely that in the future the PDE will infringe further into graduation requirements and force local school districts to cede more control to the State.

Finally, I did send an email to the PSBA outlining my concerns. For some balance to my viewpoint, I present their response below:

Thank you for your comments. Your specific concern has been echoed by others. As you know, this whole debate began with GCA supporters saying that new tests were needed because too many students graduated based on reaching proficiency on local assessments rather than on the PSSA. This argument made the underlying assumption that local assessments were somehow substandard, an argument that PSBA refuted because there had been no studies or research proving this. It is also important to remember that PDE had never been required to give school districts any technical advice or guidance on the issue of developing local assessments.

The recent Penn State study found that while many school districts have local assessments that are aligned to the state's academic standards, which is what the regulations require, many do not use those assessments or the results of those assessments in a manner that is acceptable to PDE.

Under the language of the new proposal, districts can either use the new Keystone Exams or a validated local assessment as a graduation test. Since validation of local assessments would be required, subject to criteria developed in part by PDE and by representatives of PSBA, it would be difficult for the state to then go back in a few years and say that the local assessments can no longer be used and that only a state test (PSSA or keystone exams) can be used. I'm not sure what their argument would be.

The cost of validation is also a subject of much discussion, as it should be. There are several reasons that I believe will ensure that these costs are not burdensome on school districts. First, the new language requires the state to pay half the costs. Second, the criteria would be developed by a committee on which PSBA has four representatives and the state four. Third, the recent Penn State study recognized that there are 18 school districts that have valid local assessments. I believe that PDE will share best practices and any other useful information with school districts around the state in order to help them develop valid local assessments. Finally, PDE would be required to provide technical guidance to any school district that requests it in developing local assessments. If school districts can submit a test that they believe is valid based on using information shared by PDE, it likely will shorten the time needed for validation and thus, make it less expensive.

I appreciate your concerns about the nature of the agreement, but I believe the new language makes it more difficult for the state to turn around in the future and mandate the use of a state test for graduation purposes.

I welcome further comments.

Tim Allwein
Assistant Executive Director for Governmental and Member Relations Pennsylvania School Boards Association P.O. Box 2042 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
(717) 506-2450, Ext. 3325
Cell: (717) 574-3005
Fax: (717) 506-2476
e-mail: tim.allwein@psba.org

Thanks for reading.

James

Budget Discussions Begin Tonight- Input Wanted

That title is not entirely correct. The Audit/Finance Committee has been meeting for a few months discussing the assumptions in the upcoming budget. Tonight is the first time in a while that the Board as a whole will go over a more realistic budget than the one presented last month. As you may know, that budget was engineered to force the Board to get an exception from the PDE to raise taxes higher than the allotted Act 1 limits. The Board does not believe it will need the exception, but it will most likely be there if we need it.

The budget season is the time of year that allows the District and the community to set its priorities. If you have a moment, email me how you would prioritize the following categories (in no particular order):

-program breadth
-athletics
-arts
-taxes
-class size
-school construction
-salaries

Add other items to your own list and let me know what you think. This is nothing more than an exercise in trying to validate how I would prioritize the same items in the District budget. I hear from my family, friends, and others what their thoughts are. I'd appreciate input from a broader segment of our community.

I'll let you know where I stand on these priorities in a few weeks.

Send emails to james.fraasch@gmail.com.

Thanks for reading.

James

Consolidation Update

I posted a few weeks back about Governor Rendell's message about school consolidation. Today there is an article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette tackling both the consolidation plan and the graduate competency assessments.

From the Post-Gazette:

Pa. official grilled on graduation exam, school mergers

Tuesday, March 03, 2009

By Tom Barnes, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

HARRISBURG -- State Education Secretary Gerald Zahorchak ran into a bipartisan buzzsaw today before the Senate Appropriations Committee, as he was assailed for trying to reduce the state's 501 school districts to just 100 and for pushing to develop a new high school graduation test.

Democratic Sens. Sean Logan of Monroeville and Andrew Dinniman of Chester questioned Gov. Ed Rendell's controversial idea of consolidating school districts.

Mr. Logan said it had been tough enough just to close Duquesne High School and transfer those 135 students to nearby high schools.

"How are we going to deal with transferring millions of students if the districts are reduced to 100?'' he said.

Mr. Dinniman asked where the number of 100 came from.

Mr. Zahorchak, who is Mr. Rendell's point man on several emotional education issues, said some people had talked about having just one school district per county, and there are 67 counties. Larger counties, such as Allegheny, would probably need several school districts, so the figure of 100 came up, he said.

Mr. Zahorchak said the upcoming merger of Monaca and Center districts in Beaver County could provide a blueprint for other combinations.

The school district consolidation idea did get some support from Sen. John Wozniak, D-Cambria, who said a study by a legislative committee a couple years ago supported the idea and said that about 2,500 students was a good number for each district

Mr. Rendell wants the Legislature to set up a committee to study the consolidation idea and settle on a different, lower number of districts if it chooses.

Mr. Zahorchak also took flak from Sen. Jane Orie, R-McCandless, over his plan to create new "Graduation Competency Assessment'' exams that all high school students would have to pass in order to graduate. He said that too many students are now getting diplomas while still being unprepared academically for college or the work force.

He said that if a local school district wanted to develop its own assessment exam that was just as rigorous as the one the state is developing, it could use the local exam.

But Ms. Orie didn't like either idea, saying it could ultimately cost the state up to $45 million to develop the tests. She said it's an unnecessary expense when the state is facing a $2.3 billion budget deficit.

Perhaps the most poignant protest at the budget hearing -- even if it was silent -- was the appearance by 25 students from the Scranton School for the Deaf, who don't like the Rendell/Zahorchak plan to save $7 million by closing their school. It serves 100 deaf students and has 100 staff members.

Mr. Zahorchak said it's the only school in the state that is directly run by state government, and he thinks it's time for the state to stop such direct education. The students might be served by an intermediate unit in the Scranton area or even with programs from the Western Pennsylvania School for the Deaf, he said.

An interpreter, using sign language, told the students what was being said at the hearing. Sen. Lisa Baker, R-Luzerne, strongly protested the Rendell administration's plans to close the school.

It looks like there is bi-partisan opposition to the consolidation plan at this time. Even if the Governor gets a study going it will be a few years before we might know something more.

Kudos to State Senator Jane Orie for using the opportunity to talk about some budget ramifications of the GCAs.

Thanks for reading.

James

Superintendent Moving Back to Kansas

From the District website:

John Allison Named Superintendent of Wichita Public Schools

Mt. Lebanon Superintendent, John Allison, was named Superintendent of Schools for Wichita Public Schools USD 259. The announcement was made by the Wichita Board of Education at a public meeting held on March 2, 2009.

Mt. Lebanon School Board President, Alan Silhol, stated, "We are very sorry to see John leave us, but we wish him the best in his new position. We will work quickly to ensure a smooth transition. The Board will meet in executive session this week to discuss this further and we will share next steps with the community at next Monday's School Board Discussion meeting on March 9, 2009 to be held at 7:30 p.m. in the High School Library".

Mr. Allison came to Mt. Lebanon in June, 2007 from the Grapevine-Colleyville School District in Dallas, Texas. "An opportunity arose in Wichita that would allow us to move back to our home and family in Kansas", stated Allison. "This was a very difficult decision for me to make. Mt. Lebanon is a wonderful community and a very special school district."

It is anticipated that Mr. Allison will remain in the District through the end of the school the year.

Mr Allison is a very good Superintendent but an even better person. He will be missed.

As Board President Alan Silhol states in the above press release, the Board will start discussions this week on replacing Mr. Allison.

James