Per posts below by Paul Strange and Sandra, here are new numbers showing unrestricted funds comparisons only. We have removed average salaries and have included the high and low salaries instead. This Blog post is not intended to show that we do not need a Parcel Tax it is intended to show that the district should be able to make a better offer to our teachers. While we wait to replace April Treece and Mr. McHenry, while we wait to restore confidence in the MDUSD stakeholders and while we wait to launch a Parcel Tax campaign.... we are making our teachers wait.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I'm not sure where your numbers came from, but even accepting them, this demonstrates exactly the problem. Look at the Contra Costa County districts you have included (this is the best comparison because we have a cost of living that is similar, though not equal). If you look at those and then look at the highest/lowest salaries, with the exception of San Ramon (which I discussed in the comments on the other post and has at least $19 million more than MDUSD per year to spend), you will see that we have significantly more dollars in salary than the other CCC districts you list.
This is exactly the point. Certainly we could create a compensation scheme similar to theirs, but to do so, salary would have to be given up to go towards benefits. This is not something that MDEA (or even individual teachers I have talked to) are prepared to do. In other words, I think your presentation proves the opposite of what you conclude. It shows that MDUSD has an allocation problem. Remember, each of those dollars that are in salary go to every teacher, while the dollars that go to benefits only go to those who take it (although for dental and vision which we offer, almost all take it).
In addition, the way that some districts report their benefits is misleading (and ours might be too, but I would have to look deeper). For example, San Ramon provides up to $9850 to each employee for benefits, but if the employee is single, it does not cost this much, so they are not paying $9850, but the actual cost. Martinez is the same issue, but even a 2-party does not cost $15K so they are not paying that amount either.
For ours, it could be the same because our numbers are equal going across. I think they are actually low because $889 is not enough to pay for vision and dental for a family, and we do pay that. The last time I averaged the benefit cost (vision and dental) over the teachers, it was (as I remember) in excess of $1600 per teacher.
In any event, even these examples don't prove that we are really running inefficiently or that there are huge gains that can be converted into compensation.
I have not spent much time analyzing districts outside of Contrameda (I have done some Bay Area analysis for 05-06 that showed were were 150th out of 160 in the bay area for unrestricted revenue).
The cost structures are very different in other parts of the state. I do know that Poway Unified is an affluent area and generally the same is true of Orange County.
Look at Martinez. Their high salary is $5000 less than ours and their starting salary is almost $10,000 less than ours (based on your numbers). If were were to have those salaries, we would have much more available for benefits.
The bottom line, again, is that we need a parcel tax so that we can be competitive, particularly with the likes of San Ramon and Acalanes. Those are the districts that can really cherry pick our ranks.
If any of the above is unclear, please feel free to ask questions or call me. My number is on the MDUSD Blog.
One last comment - I don't know what year your information is from, but for 07-08, the highest salary in MDUSD is $82,326.
By the way, Gary Eberhart and I will be attending another meeting in Clayton on Saturday at 2:00 at Skipolini's. All are welcome.
The information used is the most current information available from the CDE web site. The school districts outside of Contra Costa county were chosen because they have schools that are listed in the 100 Similar Schools Ranking for the Northgate feeder pattern. The demographics for these districts should be similar to MDUSD. There is no question that there are districts on the list that fair better than MDUSD but there are others that fair worse. We need a parcel tax but we also have to address the waste and misaligned priorities in this district. Lack of revenue is not the whole story. You and Gary have been clear that the budget still needs to be tightened but many stakeholders have lost confidence in this district's ability to spend money wisely. Clearly these numbers show that other districts are making it work and before they are dismissed maybe MDUSD should take a closer look at what these districts do. As for the current situation this data shows that the stipend included in the current salary structure creates a starting salary that is well above market. I wonder what would happen if this number was adjusted to market and benefits were reinstated in the next offer. Maybe this concept could be grandfathered in and those with the higher starting salaries are given the option. There has to be a better solution than the offer made to MDUSD teachers last week.
Grandfathering or allowing a choice for benefits vs. salary does not help the situation. That is essentially the same (except potentially more expensive) as providing salary instead of benefits. Each dollar is spent on every teacher.
Using the Northgate feeder pattern as the point for comparison does not make much sense. That completely fails to consider the huge disparity in demographics across our district. That would probably explain why we have higher total revenue than most of your comparison group - because we have more reasons for restricted revenue.
The differences in the local cost of living and demographic differences make this an unreliable comparison, at best.
Actually, one of your comparisons shows something very interesting. Look at Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified. The benefit numbers are lower than the offer that the district made before the governor's cuts and the salaries are close to MDUSD's (although we would take some time to get there). Plus, they are in Southern California. They also have $450 more per student in unrestricted.
I agree that we have to re-prioritize the budget, but right now the issue is the huge impact of the Governor's budget. We have just cut $17 million from the budget and I don't think you can argue that those cuts were just excess fat.
The question is, how much more can we cut? Did you see my post about the impact of our previous offers on the current budget? To fund the current offers, we would have to cut $38 million over 3 years.
Your approach to the analysis is interesting, but certainly not conclusive. Particularly since you decided to compare to districts that have significantly different demographics from MDUSD.
BTW - did you get my email about Sherry Whitmarsh?
The new numbers are unrestricted only and you will have a hard time convincing me that Los Angeles, Orange County, and San Diego are not as diverse as Mt Diablo.
If I didn't use Northgate you would have said the numbers were not accurate because of the cost of living. Will any numbers make MDUSD take a second look? We have programs that don't work, we have site administration we would be better off without, we have not even scratched the surface of innovative programs that could allow teachers to teach more students in smaller groups, how about outsourcing, the list goes on. It is time for leaders in education to get creative. When you look at these numbers lets talk about Walnut Valley, Tustin, Placentia-Yorba Linda, and Pittsburg. Pittsburg has a lower starting salary but they are providing good benefits with $167 less in unrestricted funds. In addition , their teachers have an average of 12.4 years experience so they are looking at a higher average salary cost. Let's find out what they are doing.
As for Sherry Whitmarsh, she appears to be a great alternative to April Treece. Speaking for myself, I was happy to hear she was the candidate.
I think you are now talking about another issue. Our current administration does not do much in the way of program assessment. The problem is that 90% of our budget is personnel, so even if we scrap programs for others, I don't think there are major budget reductions to make. In fact fewer students per teacher directly impacts the budget in the opposite manner.
By definition, the districts you selected are less diverse than MDUSD. I know that because you used NHS feeder as the baseline. That means that you selected districts with much higher income and education levels than most of our district. Income and parent education levels are part of the similar schools comparison.
For the record, I am not MDUSD and don't speak for the district. You would have to check with the district if you want to know if they will take a second look. My position is we need to continue to re-prioritize the budget, so I don't think we are in disagreement.
All of our discussion has been based on numbers before the major budget impacts from the governor's budget.
We don't even know how much money we will end up with next year. Until we get an approved budget, we won't know. This year is very different from the normal year. In normal years, there are fluctuations in the budget throughout the year, but not of the magnitude of this year.
Sherry is a great candidate. We need to dig in and work to support her. Everyone needs to know that if you decide not to help, you are choosing the status quo, because it is going to take a significant effort to unseat an incumbent.
I have enjoyed the discussion and I appreciate the fact that you are digging into the numbers.
Just for the record, two corrections to your assessment of what I said. I did not say smaller class sizes... I was referring to innovative teaching options not typical class-size reductions.
Secondly, you can not assume that the districts are less diverse because Northgate was the baseline. Northgate was only the baseline for a specific school (or two) within each of those districts. Orange County is very similar to Contra Costa in diversity and economics as well as its proximity to a larger urban area.
Post a Comment