A Pressing Issue for Taxpayers

[petermountanos]

For those of you who may not know me, my name is Peter Mountanos, and I am running for a position on the Wantagh Board of Education. I graduated Wantagh High School last year, and I am currently attending NYU’s Gallatin School of Individualized Study. Some people have questioned my knowledge expertise in handling a budget simply due to my age. Also, I have received several emails from residents that I have not shown enough empathy towards the taxpayers in my platform. While I do discuss several revenue initiatives on my website (petermountanos.org), I would like to take this time to articulate upon an interesting notion that is highly concerning to the taxpayers, and the community as a whole. I want to be able to engage with this community about their thoughts and concerns, as this is an open forum.

One concept that I have not heard much about in the race so far is the Triborough Reform issue. Since our contract with the WUT expires June 2014 [1], this will become a pressing issue for our district within the next year. For those of you who don’t know what the Triborough Reform is:

“The Triborough Amendment requires schools to continue paying “step” increases (an annual average of 2% on instructional salaries according to the NYS Association of Management Advocates for School Labor Affairs - MASLA) - even under an expired contract. The step salary increases transpire as a matter of law whether or not the economic and market conditions dictate a sustainable condition for businesses, taxpayers or schools to viably support and extend them. The Triborough Amendment creates a disincentive for teachers to accept terms and conditions less costly than those allowed in the previous contract (in spite of economic realities) and it drastically hampers school districts’ ability to effectively negotiate changes in terms in response to economic hardship. This stands in stark contrast to the options of salary freezes and renegotiation available to private businesses facing issues of fiscal crisis and viability. State and local taxpayers can no longer afford to underwrite the ability of public employees to ignore the fiscal realities faced by those who pay their salaries. The resulting loss of jobs has too great an impact on the state’s economy and the programs and services needed by students.“[2]

I would like to note that I have the upmost respect for teachers and that without them, we would not be able to educate our children. I am a recent product of the Wantagh School District, and I know and have experienced first-hand the amazing things that some of our teachers have done. However, in a turbulent economy, we cannot guarantee step raises each year. Especially with the recently instated 2% tax levy cap, it is simply not feasible. As a community, we need to work together with the WUT to negotiate a fair and proper contract. We cannot accept a matter of uncompleted negotiations next year, and possibly beyond, if we plan to stay below the tax cap. I am looking to provide a fresh voice in the negotiations, and to make sure this gets done fairly and swiftly. Thank you for taking the time to read this.

- Peter

[1] wantagh.patch.com/groups/schools/p/wantagh-teachers-contract-officially-accepted
[2]http://www.nyssba.org/index.php?src=gendocs&ref=Triborough%20Reform&category=advocacy_legislation

[Chris_Wendt]

Welcome to the "Cone of Silence", here, Peter. Don't let the seeming quiet disturb you. I admire your initiative to seek election to the Board of Education, as well as your acumen concerning several issues.

Triborough is certainly one factor in the current financial situation facing our schools. But it is not universally despised: for instance, any board member (or prospective board member) who also happens to be a tenured teacher is most likely an avid supporter of Triborough. Then there is the quid pro quo for having Triborough--the "No Strike" provision mandated upon all NY teachers and their unions; most people would consider that protection against interruption of the school year to be of value.

But changing Triborough is outside the authority of the Board of Education, and the Board has a responsibility to abide by its requirements. One year the BoE withheld step raises and we were taken before PERB by the teachers union, chastised and made to pay those raises. So, it is not as though the Wantagh BoE just laid down and rolled-over for Triborough. We fought but we lost. Lessen learned.

But Triborough is not the be-all and end all of the "problem". There is nothing in any law which requires a Board of Education to agree to increasing the entire salary schedule every three or four years. In concept, at least, a board could maintain that the existing salary schedule is fair and adequate, and other than the programmed step and lane increases, does not need to be nor should it be changed, other than perhaps once every ten or twenty years. Sure, steps cost a district in the range of 2-2-1/2 percent each year, but take a closer look at Schedule A in the teacher contract. Teachers who are on steps get step raises in the 4% to 6% range as they progress, and more if they earn educational credits. Teachers who are not on steps have already reached the maximum and are earning will above $100K per year, with a year being only ten months long. So, to a large extent the Board of Education has the antidote to Triborough...no general increases to the salary schedule, other than perhaps once in each decade.

The last time a BoE did that (East Meadow), negotiations dragged-on for more than four years. So, a quick settlement would really not be in the cards, if you wanted to maintain the existing step schedule and its already choking costs. Then you could settle quickly, raise everyone's salary by an additional 3 or 4 percent every year forever, and thus really bust the budget and rupture the tax cap.

Say, did you notice that New York was today rated 49th worst state for business? That's 49th out of 50 states! Feel free to comment about this. It is a big underlying factor in our very real declining enrollment experience.

Regards,

Chris Wendt
Past President, Wantagh Board of Education

[petermountanos]

Chris,

I truly appreciate the feedback! Sorry if I was not explicit concerning the notion that Triborough is not universally despised – I certainly agree with you. Both factors you brought up are valid in their own respects. I do find high value in the Taylor Law, preventing teachers and other NYS public employees from striking. It was an essential negotiation, as it ensures our youth will receive the necessary education they deserve day in and day out, as well as other public services that our state needs.

Also, I did not mean that as a district we should try to ignore Triborough, I simply stated it that it might very well not be a feasible option for our community in the near future. Honestly, I agree with you, if we can’t negotiate a better contract with the WUT as this one terminates, I think we should face the effects of Triborough. I did not mean we should negotiate a contract in haste; I was just articulating that we need to think of creative solutions to this ubiquitous problem. Is the answer hard freezes, salary schedule reductions in future negations, Triborough…? I’m not sure at this moment, but what I do know is that I will put my best effort to work together with the rest of the BoE to find it.

Concerning your statement about New York State’s attractiveness for businesses – I completely agree with your hypothesis. I think that this, without a doubt, is a driving factor in our very real declining enrollment. While there are things that we can do at a local level to improve fiscal management and educational policy, there are many theoretical underpinnings in the construction of our government and society that are holding us back from significant improvements. Unfortunately, as a school district we have very little, if any, control on NYS’ attractiveness for businesses. While we have no control of these situations, we are the ones facing the burden. I suppose this discussion is beyond our scope of jurisdiction, however, I think it is important for the residents of the community to understand.

So what can we do to counteract declining enrollment? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe you served on the Full-Day Kindergarten Committee, and I commend you for your work. On my platform, I articulate my advocacy for full-day “k” for several reasons. I personally think that full-day k will help counteract declining enrollment, and clearly so does the committee and administration. This is a logical induction, as if we can improve the value of education in the district, it will attract more young families to the community. This is driving factor why I am running for the BoE – I believe I can truly work together with the rest of the BoE to improve the education we provide – as I was there just last year. While I am concerned with the fiscal turmoil facing our district, state, nation, etc., education my primary focus. My reasoning for this is that if we can provide a better education, we will mold better students, who will get into better universities, who will get better jobs, in turn better salaries, etc. If we can solve the educational issues first, it will make solving the fiscal issues all the easier. Again, thank you for taking the time to read my post and communicate with me, I truly appreciate it! Feel free to respond to anything!

Sincerely,

Peter

[Chris_Wendt]

Peter asked, rhetorically: "So what can we do to counteract declining enrollment?"

We agree that initiating Full-day Kindergarten should be considered a positive in that it could increase Wantagh's enrollment, possibly offsetting some other negative pressures that also are and will continue to cause further declines. No one can judge the impact of Full-day K until at least after it has been in place for probably two years. However, it seems Full-day K will become a reality in September, unless I am really reading the budgetary tea leaves incorrectly.

But there's much more to consider.

The economy, jobs, corporate development are major factors in school enrollment in the LI area. New York's recent designation as the 49th worst state for business is not something that happened overnight, and the inception of that dubious distinction precedes 2008 by nineteen years, back in the Mario Cuomo era. These factors are called "givens", and their result (contributing to declining enrollment) can only be reacted to after the fact by any school board.

Renewed parental interest in non-public schools is another factor, and this competitive component of declining enrollment deserves more in-depth discussion than I care to have here. I will say that the course and eventual attainment of Wantagh's Blue Ribbon Schools was not a happenstance nor an accident, but the fulfillment of long-range academic goals first articulated by Bob O'Donovan, a fellow Chaminade alumnus with whom I served on the Wantagh Board long ago. In other words, Wantagh's pursuit of academic excellence, and our early vision, was in part, grounded outside of the realm of public schools at that time.

Wantagh does not have an alumni-funded endowment, and though we do have two 501c3 foundations, other than restoring sports the year the budget failed (more that $600,000 worth), they have not been significant academic funding engines, and on balance the one foundation has consumed more district funds than it ever generated in educational grants to the district's K-12 students.

Where I am going with this is, that without additional meaningful academic funding, and without busting the budget and rupturing the tax cap, Wantagh (the Board of Education) is going to have to consider other options for enriching or even maintaining existing academic programs in the future.

• Cooperation with neighboring districts for developing and hosting program offerings, perhaps on a student exchange basis
• Participation in regionalization, including specialized (STEM) or 'magnet' schools
• Subscription to commercially produced, technologically enabled programming (Khan Academy and similar upcoming and ongoing offerings)

This is all way different than what we have ever done before .

Alternatively, the district could opt to continue to struggle financially, continue to stress taxpayers and continue to disappoint the future expectations of students and their parents, until we become wholly uncompetitive with non-public educational services, and then watch the enrollment go from declining to evaporating.

What do you think students will want? What do you think parents will want for their kids, in the near future? What do you think taxpayers will be willing to support with our tax dollars in the coming 2-6 years?

We will shortly be voting with our pencils on the school budget and for two school board trustees. But regardless of that certain voting date on the third Tuesday in May, many of my fellow taxpayers may continue to vote with our feet, and moving vans, if there is no real tax relief on the horizon.

This is a frightening scenario we are facing. Even for me.

In all seriousness,

Chris Wendt

[rr]

All very interesting stuff but the thing I keep asking myself about Full Day K is the timing of it's incorporation into the budget. Let me first say that I am very much in favor of Full Day K and agree that it is a very important component to reverse the declining enrollment but the timing of implementation is directly correlated to the "dreaded" Common Core.

I personally feel that the Administration / current BOE is not necessarily looking at Full Day K as a benefit to the children and the community in general - if that were the case it would have and should have been implemented many years ago. Instead, the implementation is a reaction to Common Core and trying to prepare the children for the upcoming testing, and protect the teachers that will be partially evaluated on the results of those tests.

Who would have thought one of the side benefits of the move to the Common Core would be that our district would finally catch up with the other 98% of Nassau School Districts and implement a program that is so obviously critical to the educational process and the community at large.

To me the timing of this program is further evidence that our district is still in reaction mode and not innovating or leading the way educationally or with it's financial planning. I found some of the audience comments at last nights BOE meeting and review of the budget quite accurate and if we, our community, SD administration and BOE trustees don't start changing our mentality and approach now we will always be reacting as we are now to Common Core. Sorry but principals sending letters home, people starting Facebook pages encouraging an Opt-Out movement is not innovating or leading change - it's yet another reaction to something that's been coming for years...we adopted Common Core way back in 2010. We need to support our kids to do their best on these tests and let the rest play itself out...teachers teach the material and students take tests to measure how well they're learning the material - isn't that the way it works? What's changed?

I was thinking about this opt-out movement and realized...my school tax bills are really stressing me out and they're ruining my experience of the American Dream of home ownership - perhaps I will write a letter to express that I've decided to Opt-Out of my school tax bills...hey, I think I'm starting to like this idea.

I realize my post went a bit off topic but it's more about the fact that we need to change the way we approach things here in Wantagh and perhaps it's time to take a gamble on a young person that hasn't been jaded by bureaucracy, PTA cliques, cronyism, and/or a fear to take a stand on the upcoming teacher contract negotiations. I'm still undecided on one of my votes and look forward to hearing more from Peter in the upcoming days...

[Chris_Wendt]

rr posited: "...I am very much in favor of Full Day K and agree that it is a very important component to reverse the declining enrollment but the timing of implementation is directly correlated to the "dreaded" Common Core."

I would offer that the timing was coincidental rather than a direct correlation. Full-day K was part of the prospectus for the bond proposition that authorized adding classrooms to all three elementary schools; the concept was we would use the new classrooms to handle the enrollment bubble in the elementary grades (Sunrise Park School had been demolished by then), and after the bubble had passed through those schools, use the extra classroom capacity to house Full-day K.

Why wasn't Full-day K added previously? In part because we never seemed to have the money, despite the fact that state aid was available each year for the conversion. Why didn't we have the money? Because we kept raising salaries, and because we never did any long-range financial planning which would have put funding for Full-day K on "The List" of priorities. All we did was make a new priority list each year, and rationalized our generosity in salaries and benefit contributions.

The advent of Common Core will certainly add value and provide additional impetus for having--and retaining--Full-day K. Coincidentally.

I was on the Board when the original commitment was made to have Full-day K, and I served on the Declining Enrollment & Full-Day Kindergarten Committee last year. Wantagh's kindergartners are among a small minority of about 8% of kids in NY State who DO NOT attend Full-day K.

However, there has been an increase in the number of children attending good preschools during the intervening years between the bond passing and now. Having had all those kids who were fairly well prepared for a full-fledged educational experience come into half-day kindergarten has been a rather sad reality in Wantagh for several years.

Anyone who is in favor of Full-day K should ultimately be satisfied that, whatever the reasons, timing, and coincidences, we are now finally about to do the right thing in this regard.

Hoping we are able to fulfill this commitment to your future kindergartners,

Chris Wendt

[rr]

In the magical universe there are no coincidences and there are no accidents. Nothing happens unless someone wills it to happen.
-William S. Burroughs
-------------------------------
Perhaps you're right Chris and I kind of hope you are - maybe I'm a bit too skeptical but the timing to me is suspicious...it seems like it's another late reaction to the testing/evaluations that we adopted in 2010. I think the above statement about coincidence is true except I don't believe it was the will of the people that prompted the inclusion, I think it was the fear from the administration that willed it into our budget. People have been talking about full day K in Wantagh many years from what I've heard in talking to people, I've heard people say "...it was under discussion when my son was headed into Kindergarten - he just graduated from college!".

I am satisfied that its in the budget and I do believe it will help the kids and the community in many ways.
As far as my future Kindergartners...none on the immediate horizon...although if my whole tax opt-out plan works out the way I think maybe I can afford to have more kids!! : )

[Chris_Wendt]

Thinking about this, there are two other situations that weighed on the Full-Day K developments ripening.

First, there was an earlier Declining Enrollment Committee report (2011?) that apparently did not hold sway with the Administration or BoE. That report landed amidst turmoil and strife in the upper echelon of the District. In any event that report opened the door quite a bit, but just not far enough.

Second was Maureen Goldberg taking over the helm, and ordering another look into both declining enrollment and Full-day K, and launching the 2012 Committee. I would invite anyone interested to read the 2012 Declining Enrollment Committee Report that resulted. I think readers would agree that Maureen's decision and the Board's support of that decision, putting FDK in the budget stands on the merits.

Best regards,

Chris Wendt