Q & A's Regarding the 2011/12 PWSD Budget

The following are Q & A’s regarding the 2011 Port Washington School District Budget, as of May 12, 2011 from the Port Washington Educational Assembly, P.O. Box 203, Port Washington, NY 11050  

Q. How does our school budget increase compare with other government budget increases?

A. Most government budgets are being frozen for the coming year or at least kept at or below inflation, but our school budget is being increased by an amount 85% above inflation  (2.96% vs. 1.6%).

Q. How does our Port school budget compare to other Nassau school budgets?

A. Port’s school budget is being increased at a rate higher than 40 of Nassau’s other 54 school districts. (source: Newsday, 4/27, pg. 35).

Q. How does Port’s school tax increase compare with the rate of inflation?

A. Our tax increase is 2 and ½ times the rate of inflation.

Q. What is the current median (middle) salary for a Port teacher?

A. The median salary today for a full time Port teacher is $104,000, not counting pay for after school work. Next year the median salary should be over $106,000.

 Q. How much in benefits do our Port teachers get?

A. Our typical teacher this year gets pension benefits costing $9000, health insurance costing $15,000, social security costing $8000, as well as other minor benefits. The total is over $32,000 this school year, rising to about  $37,000 per teacher for 2011/12 in the proposed budget.

 Q. So the total compensation paid to a typical (middle) Port teacher is the combination of the salary & the benefits?

A. Yes, this year that total is $136,000 and in the budget for next year it’s $143,000 per teacher.

Q. How much of an increase will Port teachers receive in the coming year?

A. Most Port teachers (about 2/3) will receive a COLA (base salary adj.) increase of 2.5% plus  an average STEP increase of about 3-3.5%, for a total increase of 5.5% to 6%.  Other teachers at higher salaries (above $100,000) who do not receive STEP increases will get 2.5%.

 Q. Do we have to pay these salaries to get well qualified teachers?

A. Absolutely not. Over the past 35 years we have obtained data from the school district showing that every year on average we have between 100 and 200 applicants for every open teacher position (e.g., 4,800 applicants for 25 positions in 2005). It has never changed. Quite often it is the “connection” you have with someone in the school district that helps get you the job. Long Island teachers are paid much more than NYC teachers, who many would say have a far more difficult job. Long Island teaching jobs are very, very desirable. Paying these salaries is clearly not warranted nor justified.

 Q. Were our teachers asked to make any salary concessions this year, as many other Long Island teachers were asked to do and who made such concessions?

A. Our teachers were repeatedly asked to make a partial giveback on their salary increases, but they repeatedly refused.

 Q. Were there any specific areas where the Port Washington Educational Assembly asked the Port Washington school district to consider making significant cost cuts, without unduly affecting educational quality?

A. Yes, the PWEA made numerous suggestions that if even accepted halfway would have kept our budget increase well below inflation, and possibly even at a zero increase. These suggestions included:

            a. Weber & Schreiber have 350 classes (regular classes, not SN or AIS) with 19 or fewer students. Increasing 2/3 of these to an average of 25 students per class would have saved  well over $1,000,000 per year.

            b. Schreiber teachers teach only 3.3 hours per day, while the contract allows 4 hours per day. By increasing the classes taught by most teachers at Schreiber from 3.3 to 4 classes every day (instead of 4 classes for 1/3 days and 3 classes for 2/3 days), we’d save $2,000,000 per year.

            c. We have 7 Assistant Principals with staffs at Weber & Schreiber. By cutting back to 3 Assistant Principals, we’d save $1,000,000 per year.

            d. We have 17 Guidance Counselors in our schools, while the average for other Long Island school districts of our size is less than 12. The PWSD did cut back 2 Guidance Counselors. By cutting back 5 Guidance Counselors, we would have saved over $600,000.

Q. Was the last teachers’ contract fair to the taxpayers?

A. Clearly not.  Besides continuing  STEP increases of approx. 17% over 5 years, we added another 10% in COLA increases for all teachers, as well as increasing salaries for STEPs 27 & 30, where salaries were already well above $100,000.  Most teachers (about 2/3) are getting increases of 25-30% over the 5 years of the contract. The other 1/3 get 10%.  In addition, we should have increased the health insurance costs paid by employees to at least 25%. But we did not. Recently, we have read in Newsday of numerous other school districts where the teachers have agreed to salary increases well below those given our teachers.

 Q. What about educational quality? Have we acted well in this regard?

A. No. The best thing we could have done in the contract was introduce a “merit pay” system for our teachers. This would have rewarded the best teachers and encouraged the worst to retire or leave. We had a Merit Pay Committee made up of 4 teachers and 4 administrators appointed by the school board. Unfortunately, they decided against a merit pay system. We (the PWEA) had offered to participate on this committee, but we were not invited to participate. So, as in other districts, the worst teachers continue to be paid as much as the best teachers. Worse still, the poor performing teachers are encouraged to stay rather than to retire. This is not good for the level of educational quality we want for our children.

Q. What happens if we defeat the budget?

A. If defeated, the budget is reduced by $1,470,000. This reduction can be treated by the school district in one of two ways: (1) by providing a reduction in the tax increase from 3.95% to about 2.5%, or, (2) by “punishing” the taxpayers for defeating the budget by refusing to apply the $1,434,000 in reserve funds committed by the school board to keeping the tax increase lower if the budget passes, and instead keep this in the reserve fund and raise taxes more than necessary. If this happens, however, then the school district will have $1.4 million more funds in reserves to pay for the needed roof repairs at Weber or for use in addressing next year’s budget. Either way, a defeated budget helps the taxpayers and keeps the base for next year’s budget increase lower than otherwise would be the case. But, unfortunately, when a budget is defeated a school board will also often choose to “punish” the parents for failing to pass the budget by cutting sports teams when instead they could have cut an administrator or an Assistant Principal.

Q. Was the school district ethical in how it presents budget information to the public using taxpayer dollars?

A. No, not this year anyway. Take the Port Advances publication mailed at taxpayer expense to all residents. It is supposed to present data on the budget in a non-biased and factually correct way. This year, however, compared to last year, we saw a clear departure from this non-biased presentation format on page 1 of the Port Advances. Last year Port Advances presented our PWSD’s standing on “ per pupil expenses” and on “budget to budget increases” for our school district compared to the other 11 “neighboring districts.”  Well, last year we were the 11th highest in budget to budget increase, and so that data was stressed on page 1 of Port Advances. BUT THIS YEAR, that data was omitted. Why? Well, we checked and found that this year we are the 3rd highest of the 12 “neighboring districts” in budget to budget increases.  So, since the data does not make us look good, that data was simply omitted this year. Is this being fair and balanced in reporting key data to the community? Of course not. When a school district prints key data that only makes it look good, but then the next year omits that very same data because we do not look so good, that is biased reporting of data. And, using taxpayer money to do such biased reporting of data is unethical at the least, and illegal at worst.