The motto on our banner is a Thomas Jefferson quote: “Information is the currency of democracy.”
Like many people in the community, we rely for our “currency” in no small part on our two local newspapers. And in some respects, they do an adequate-to-good job. Unfortunately, local news reporting can also be uneven for a variety of reasons, some reasonable and others irresponsible.
Which may explain why, just the other day, we received an e-mail about the article in last week’s Park Ridge Herald-Advocate about Maine Twp. High School Dist. 207’s agreement with the Maine Teachers Association to a new 3-year contract (“District 207 teachers’ contract approved,” June 15). The e-mailer asked what we knew about the “step” increases built into the teachers’ pay scale, whether D-207 has “ladder” increases like D-64 does, and how the new contract affected either the “step” or “ladder” structure.
Our answer: Not much at all, in large part because the boards and administrations of both our local school districts seem to subscribe to the code of “omerta” when it comes to transparency and accountability, especially about unpleasant things like test scores and compensation of employees.
That H-A article did little to increase public knowledge of the new contract. Sure, it reported that the teachers will receive a .66% raise in year one (beginning August 16th), 1% in year two, and a cost-of-living raise in year three with a range of .50% to 2.4%. But the only mention of “steps” or “ladders” was to report that the new contract includes a new, 25-step pay scale, up from the 20-step scale of the past.
We understand those increases are non-merit based, but confirmation of that is another bit of important information that was missing from the article.
District 207’s “spokesman” – don’t you just love how every governmental body now has at least one public relations “professional” to spin and obfuscate – claims the new scale will cause a decrease in pay raises related to those “step” increases. How exactly? The article doesn’t say, presumably because the reporter and/or her editor didn’t think that kind of information is important enough to track down, even though “step” and “ladder” increases represent a significant component of teacher compensation that is effectively guaranteed year after year.
Or maybe they didn’t want to tick off the spokesman, who can make their jobs a lot tougher simply by reducing the tidbits of information he tosses out like Hartz Mountain Dog Yummies to those media types who happily wag their tails instead of snarl.
The article continues with the District’s self-serving statement that the new contract also has “some important cost-containment measures on insurance costs.” What are those measures? What actual savings will they produce? Once again, questions like that seem to be above somebody’s pay grade.
Since even the H-A must feel guilty shilling for just one side, the article also gives the teachers union its own props, quoting the union’s president about his organization’s efforts “to maintain programs that attract and retain quality education professionals to District 207 while making concessions that allow the district to maintain financial strength and stability.”
What “programs”? What “concessions”? Anybody? Bueller?
We’re thinking that what really attracts and retains those unionized “education professionals” at D-207 is the top-shelf pay and benefits, especially at the relatively homogenous and affluent Maine South. So a look at how D-207’s pay and benefits compare to other similar districts would have been an angle worth exploring. But even though sites like championnews.net and Openthebooks.com are making that information much more readily available than ever before, without the need for FOIAs, such comparisons don’t seem to be the H-A’s stock in trade when it might mean offending certain public officials or special interests.
But where that article really slides to high school-newspaper quality is the lack of any explanation of why D-207 board member Ed Mueller voted against the contract. After being exposed to the District’s and the union’s propaganda, doesn’t the public deserve to hear whatever reason(s) may have been behind Mueller’s lonely dissent?
Or does he have to issue his own press release in order to give our local media its information in bite-sized, pre-chewed pieces?
Until that occurs, the rest of us remain stuck in the dark with more questions than answers. And public officials who seem to like it that way.
UPDATE: Today’s Park Ridge Journal article failed to add any information or understanding to this situation, apparently also just regurgitating whatever sound bites “spokesman” David Beery tossed out – and lamely stating that, as to the maximum pay grade for the district,” “[t]hose figures were unknown.”
Unknown?!?! Gee, did the unidentified Journal reporter even think to ask? Wouldn’t it be more useful information than the excerpt from what is described as a D-207 “media release” quoting Board president Sean Sullivan self-serving back-slapping: “The contract accomplishes the board’s main objective of putting students first” – the old reliable “It’s for the kids” justification/alibi that may still be the single most effective public relations device since at least WW II.
But while the two local papers continue to operate at the level of mediocre high school newspapers, at least the TribLocal put a little meat on this story’s bones. It describes the reason behind lone Board dissenter Ed Mueller’s “no” vote on the contract – “[H]e felt the agreement was too much, as he pointed to the sagging economy and data that shows District 207 teachers are some of the highest paid in the state” – a fact about which the H-A and Journal kept strangely silent, or else irresponsibly clueless. The TribLocal story also reported on Mueller’s concern about “state lawmakers’ threats to shift the pension costs on school districts.”
Gee, some actual journalism. Way to go, TribLocal reporter Jennifer Delgado.
Ms. Delgado also reported that Board president Sullivan, in what seems to us as being ostrich-like fashion, dismissed Mueller’s concerns by “contend[ing] the district can’t react to a hypothetical situation.” That’s right, Sean, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain – even if the man is Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan, the single most powerful Illinois lawmaker who recently proposed shifting a substantial portion of school pension obligations to the individual school districts. Is that the management style you learned as CFO at Triton College?
Thanks to the TribLocal, at least we can offer Mr. Mueller, of whom we previously have been critical on occasion, some kudos for actually representing the students AND the taxpayers.
To read or post comments, click on title.
19 comments so far
Why is it that nobody seems to comment that much about your posts on schools? Each of the two local school districts consumes around 1/3 of our property tax bills, while the city of Park Ridge takes only around 10%, yet city issues seem to get all the action. What gives?
EDITOR’S NOTE: Our belief is that: (a) both of our school boards tend to be populated by more go-along-to-get-along folks than the City Council, so there is far less disagreement and debate on those boards; (b) the teachers unions and their brethren on the administration side have been successful at persuading many people that the delivery and administration of education is beyond the average person’s understanding; and (c) because education is a lengthy process, short-term metrics are hard to come by or debate.
(d) The real daily experience of those voters with children attending d64/d207 is generally very positive.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Considering most parents of D-64 and D-207 students are getting at least $8,000 of “free” education per child – after deducting the roughly $3-4,000 per year of property taxes paid – we’re not all that surprised about that. But we tend to be more concerned about the folks who are paying the bills, not reaping the “free” services.
PD-
Not sure about D207, as I am much more familiar with D64, and the problem there has been that the board is made up of parents, professional and non-professional folks, who typically have kids in the system. They haven’t yet, and will never do the right thing for the taxpayers cuz they can’t bear the thought of facing the teachers after they vote against one of their cockamamie demands. With the amount of monies that are spent annually by d64 for salaries, insurance etc., surely we could pull a couple of million out of the budget and hire professional administrators who could meld a fiscally responsible way of thinking for the d64 employees, while still putting our lil’ angels first ( test scores not withstanding of course). Just a thought.
EDITOR’S NOTE: With one or two notable exceptions, we agree wholeheartedly.
“Professional administrators”? Are you suggesting sometning other than our historical practice of turning over multi-million dollar “business” operations to glorified teachers who generally lack the business education, training and acumen to operate a sidewalk lemonade stand?
PD-
No. I am suggesting professional, private sector management. Folks who have no affiliation with D64 and can look a union rep in the eye and say no.
EDITOR’S NOTE: We were being facetious. We agree with you completely: We can see nothing, absolutely NOTHING, in the backgrounds of the current and previous D-64 or D-207 superintendents that would qualify them to be what effectively are CEOs (or at least COOs) of $50 million-plus service businesses, Ph.D.s in education, or history, or social studies, etc. notwithstanding.
And we share your complaint about needing “[f]olks who have no affiliation with D64 [and D207] and can look a union rep in the eye and say no” – a complaint we articulated about Fire Chief Zywanski and his ability to adequately represent Park Ridge taxpayers in negotiations with his union buddies.
PD:
My intent was not to defend anyone but to add to your list of answers to the posters question. I am all for EVERY person who pays for any service having a voice in if, when and how their money is spent.
The reality is that a significant portion of voters (taxpayers) are actual users and are very pleased with what they are getting. If they are happy they are less likely to comment on your blog or be vocal as the poster would like them to be.
EDITOR’S NOTE: We agree that significant portions of voters/taxpayers are users of those services, although “significant” should not be confused with “substantial.” Also, when it comes to schools, Park Ridge seems to be a less-sophisticated and demanding community than many of its higher-achieving peers-or-betters, perhaps because we have quite a number of 1st-generation “refugees” from the Chicago Public School system to whom the D-64 and D-207 schools are noticeably better, and safer, than their CPS counterparts.
So anomalies like mediocre rankings on ISATs (compared to peer/better communities) despite the 4th highest paid administrators and the 25th highest paid teachers in the state, for example, aren’t questioned nearly as vigorously as they might be in other communities, especially if that education is costing you only $3-4,000 for your first kid and zero for all additional ones.
“Also, when it comes to schools, Park Ridge seems to be a less-sophisticated and demanding community than many of its higher-achieving peers-or-betters, perhaps because we have quite a number of 1st-generation “refugees” from the Chicago Public School system to whom the D-64 and D-207 schools are noticeably better, and safer, than their CPS counterparts.”
I agree that PR parents are less demanding and sophisticated — and I’d add less informed — about education but I gotta disagree with you about why. I have met an astonishing number of parents here in town who grew up here and attended the schools and either never left or left and came back once they had kids.
So many of those folks seem to believe that if it was good enough for them it’s good enough for their own kids, never mind how much education — not to mention the world in general — has changed. I see lots of support for teachers in the most basic of ways but very little curiosity and engagement about what’s really happening.
As for the level of actual reporting on the matter, I also agree that “the two local papers continue to operate at the level of mediocre high school newspapers.” My assumption has been that these so-called reporters must be paid next to nothing and are possibly working second jobs. I can’t imagine any other excuse for all the content of their rags to be so sparse, nominal and insubstantial.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Agreed. Unfortunately, it seems like our two “local” newspapers are advertising flyers masquerading as newspapers, and you’re probably right about the reporter pay. But at some point we, as citizens, need to demand more, and better, from the media…and from our elected and appointed officials.
Could there be hope?
http://parkridge.patch.com/
EDITOR’S NOTE: Well, after reading that article and its link to the Daily Herald article – that’s FIVE articles we’ve read on just one particular incident – we now also know that the starting D-207 teacher makes $53,779 and the highest paid teacher makes $128,107; and that D-207 has more than $90 million in reserve funds, so it’s got plenty of money to fritter away or cushion the blow of frivolous spending should it return to the free-spending ways that Ed Mueller (according to the Daily Herald article) claims have made D-207 teachers “the highest paid in the state even before these increases.”
That starting $53,779 salary – for only 8+ months/year – annualizes out at around $72,000, which is almost Park Ridge’s median HOUSEHOLD income of $73,154. Throw in the tenure, defined benefit pension, and retirement at around 55 and it’s pretty nice work if you can get it.
I think people take education for granted here in PR. I’m not sure why. We have a reputation for high quality schools yet I sometimes feel like we’re about two steps away from sliding into low-quality territory, especially when it comes to D207/Maine South.
I don’t expect — or frankly even want — New Trier levels of quality and intensity. But the numbers — ACT scores, AP participation and test scores, college readiness, graduation rates — don’t seem to be that stellar to me lately. And the recent news that more students than ever chose 2-year colleges is more than a little disturbing to me. I want to know what’s going on regarding college expectations. Is it parents or the school district or a combination of the two?
Yes, there are a handful of Ivy League-bound grads but I wonder why so many of our students aren’t reaching higher in terms of their college plans. I know not everyone is college material but I hope that many of those who are community college bound do end up transferring and graduating from 4-year institutions. If not I fear we will be destined to fall further behind our suburban counterparts in terms of educational quality, no matter how well the teachers are compensated.
EDITOR’S NOTE: We agree generally with your comments, although one reason for the increased number of students going to community colleges would appear to be a combination of several factors: the recession cutting into the amount of money a family can afford to spend for college education; the horror stories about kids coming out of college with major student loan debt and no jobs from which to repay it; and more and more articles trumpeting the excellent value of community colleges.
7:35, I don’t think the D207 board is the same as D64’s in terms of current parents being board members. I think another area of conflict with D64 is that many teachers are also parents/taxpayers. Not so much in D207.
Good points, PW. Too often I feel like our local reporters take whatever the government spokespeople give them, write something up as quick as they can without even thinking about it, and then move on without even a second thought.
$53K for a kid right out of college working 8 months of the year is way too sweet a deal for the taxpayers to shoulder. No wonder the state is going broke, and our property taxes keep rising while most of our other services are getting cut back.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Yet the teachers will tell you they are grossly underpaid and underappreciated. But remember: It’s for the kids.
I tend to agree that community colleges are a good, lower-cost alternative to many four year schools. I cannot believe, for example, how high the tuition costs at my alma mater U of I have risen.
However, in the long run who is more likely to be hired for a good job, an OCC grad or a U of I grad? Unless students use 2 year schools as a springboard to a 4 year degree, they are going to be out of luck in the job market.
I have heard conflicting reports on how well students are able to make the transition from 2 year to 4 year schools. Bad economy or no, I don’t want to see community college replacing a traditional 4 year college education for our students, while kids from Stevenson, New Trier, Deerfield, etc take the 4 year slots…and the better jobs.
EDITOR’S NOTE: And because so many parents have had your attitude over the past 30 years, 4-year college administrators have felt like they have carte blance to jack up salaries and costs for people who will happily bury themselves under mountainous, non-dischargeable debt so their kids can attend Old Ivy or Northern State.
One wonders what a teacher salary would be if the normal laws of supply and demand applied.
EDITOR’S NOTE: How aren’t the “normal laws of supply and demand” operating for teachers?
I disagree with your premise that bad reporting = ignorant citizens = bad government.
It should be bad government leads to bad reporting to try and keep citizens ignorant.
You can have good reporting and still have ignorant citizens. You can have good government and still bad reporting (communications).
Also, your column seems to have missed one entire point altogether: the release of this information was done post school year when folks leave for vacation and do not pay as much attention. Timing of this information leads me to believe intended bad communication.
EDITOR’S NOTE: The goal we’re looking to achieve is good govenment. So if you have it, you don’t need good reporting nearly as much. And good government with ignorant citizens is better than bad government with informed citizens.
If you look at the teacher salary tables on p58 of the “old” teachers contract you will see that in the school years 2010/2011 and 2011/2012 a new teacher with a BA would get the equivalent of $51,961 in the first year and $55,961 in the 2011/2012 year.Those numbers include the 10.3% payment made by the Board to cover the teacher payment to the pension fund. This was negotiated in lieu of bigger salary increase because they never showed up in any of the wage agreement announcements. Divide one number by the other and you see that a new teacher got a 7.7% increase for returning to teach the second year. The other increases are similar That contract also includes a $34k retirement bonus(which I would guess gets around the max 6% salary bumps that can given in final years before retirement), summer school compensation $51.98 per hour and substantial life insurance for 6 years after retirement.
I haven’t seen the new contract but I bet a 0.66% wage increase comes out 4.66% or 5.66 with the steps, which are never announced.
The spin article said that 25 steps v 20 will mean smaller amounts each year but I be they will get more over th 25 years than they did under 20.
Wonder if they won’t bury the contract so we can’t find it
I talked to the Sup about two weeks ago and implored him to not agree to the 10.3 pension payment. After a long pep talk about how he was watching costs he told me he couldn’t do that. Course he just got a raise and a $25k bonus for making progress towards his goals. Isn’t that what you get a salary for?
EDITOR’S NOTE: No, in the world of public employment, you get a salary for showing up and doing your job in a satisfactory way. Anything above barely satisfactory deserves a gold star and more money. Anything less than satisfactory still gets you the same money, just no gold star.
The supply and demand factors aren’t working because of tenure
EDITOR’S NOTE: Not sure we follow that one.
You mentioned 207 spin…how about this one?
From the Chicago newspapers in early 2011:
Following an investigation in December, the IHSA penalized the (Maine South) football team in January for violations that occurred during the title game. They included counterfeit sideline passes, too many coaches on the field and in the press box, behavior of its student body and a lack of institutional control. Maine South is on probation until Dec. 1. This was the second time the program ran afoul of the IHSA. In April 2009, the school was sanctioned because of a quarterback clinic held by the offensive coordinator. “Part of that compliance will include the school submitting a plan to establish institutional control of the football program and a plan to improve sportsmanship by fans, coaches and players,” the IHSA stated in a release following its decision.
From the Trib Local. Park Ridge May 12, 2011 courtesy of the Maine Township High School District 207 spin department:
Maine South High School’s Steve Adams has been selected as the Class 3A and 4A Division 2 Athletic Director of the Year by the Illinois Athletic Directors Association (IADA). Greg Dietz, District 207 Assistant Superintendent for General Administration, said of Steve that “His leadership skills extend well beyond the district, as he worked with IHSA(Illinois High School Sports Assn) officials to develop a Student Advisory Committee and to develop model handbooks for schools to use with their team captains. Steve Adams makes a difference in the lives of the students and athletes that he serves. He has established himself as a building-wide leader among students and athletes that he serves and relishes in their individual and team accomplishments as his personal sense of job satisfaction.”
EDITOR’S NOTE: There seems to be an incongruity or two there, but we also don’t consider the IHSA a paragon of virtue, so maybe this somehow all makes sense to somebody. But while we’re Hawks sports fans, we’re much more concerned with academics than athletics.
Re Editor’s note. You got it exactly right. But what do we think the kids learned from all of this….especially when they spend 8 years in 64 supposedly learning how to be civil to other people? Disconnects and incongruities all over the place!! The football coach and AD are still there. It all works for the staff. But cheer up, 207 still has the $90 million in the bank One year of spending. And there is always the referendum when 207 agrees or is forced to pay the other 10.3% of the pension costs for everyone on staff. Its 10.3 because the standard 9.4% is considered income in the contract so 207 pays an additional 9.4% on the 9.4%
EDITOR’S NOTE: So long as we keep electing non-critical, go-along-to-get-along types to school boards, or parents who just want to make sure that “the kids” – but, most importantly, THEIR kids – get the best education everybody else’s money can buy, this is what we’ll keep getting.
Rebecca Allard was the assistant superintendent for business from 2002 to 2008. In Kasarda’s 2006 report, he singles Allard out for recognition as she “assembled much of the information upon which this demographic study is based.”
Allard, who now works for Park Ridge Community Consolidated District 64, said in an email that she could not say who approved the decisions to put enrollment numbers higher than the Kasarda report in the referendum materials.
“I can only rely on my memory,” Allard wrote in the email response. “I absolutely deny ever being a part of falsifying numbers.”
Former Superintendent Michael Jacoby, a Geneva resident who also is executive director of the Illinois Association of School Business Officials, said the district looked at Kasarda’s work as one report, better for short-term planning than long-term. Jacoby left July 1, 2006, the same day the district’s current superintendent, Kent Mutchler, began.
“For long-term planning, you want to look at saturation of development in your district,” Jacoby said. “If you build a building, you want it to serve the next 50 to 60 years. You are much more concerned about coming up short in the long run with decisions you are going to make about construction … you are making sure you have enough classroom space to support that growth.”
The district always used various models to project growth, he said.
“In the end, I think at that particular moment in time, growth was going to continue at that pace you had seen historically and that was a good assumption,” Jacoby said. “We used to remind people that if you build and it takes longer for students to come than projected, just be thankful you built at prior prices. Construction always increases in cost.”
Jacoby said the administration always prepared the informational materials presented at forums about referendums when he was superintendent.
Nearly every official connected to the referendum said he or she does not know where the enrollment numbers used came from nor who prepared the informational materials presented to the public.
Mutchler said he does not know who wrote the informational material, but suggested it was either Allard or the volunteer committee.
Allard said she did not prepare the informational material.
“I don’t know who prepared it for the committee; I just know I didn’t,” Allard said.
EDITOR’S NOTE: That’s what we get when the bureaucrats and their elected stooges sit on, or bury, information for long enough that most of the perpetrators are either gone or claim memory loss. Which is why we’re so critical of the local media, who seem unwilling and/or unable to dig into a story.
And you know there’s a problem when something like the “Illinois Association of School Business Officials” even exists – we suspect primarily to give out annual fluff-and-stroke awards to its members in an attempt to bamboozle the public into thinking everything’s “on the legit.”
You have simply agreed with the Administrative Profligacy reported by Natasha Wasinski in June??? Our education tax dollars SHOULD NOT go here!
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>