Raises would cost how much?

For teachers, spring fever brings more than baseball season and a weeklong break. It's time to start thinking about salary and contract negotiations for the next school year.

Much will hinge on the money sent down from Tallahassee at the end of the legislative session. But to get the conversation rolling, Hillsborough has looked at what it could cost to give raises of 1, 2, and 3 percent next year. For teachers alone, the cost totals to $6.8 million, $13.6 million and $20.3 million, respectively.

Adding other employees into the mix, an across-the-board raise of 3 percent would cost $27.3 million.

Just fodder for thought – for now.

- Letitia Stein, Hillsborough County education reporter

Comments

[John Perry]

A huge raise for teachers is immediately doable.

Repeal the new Merit Award Program, funded at $147.5 million. That's a hell of a start right there.

Then repeal the Tax Credit Vouchers. That shell game diverts up to $88 million from state coffers into private schools. That public money should pay for public schools.

Repeal the idiotic Florida School Recognition Program, which awards money based on FCAT scores. Last school year, $157,587,811 was paid out under this program.

Let's see...add that up, and it comes to $393,087,811...divide by the $6,800,000 it would take to give a 1% raise...WHAT! We could give teachers a 57% raise just from that?!

And I haven't even mentioned the millions wasted on FCAT...

[John Perry]

Just a note- I realize that the programs I mentioned above are statewide, and the figures given for raises are just for Hillsborough, so you could not apply the dollars just to schools in Hillsborough.

The point is, huge amounts of money is being wasted that could be put into actually raising teacher pay in Florida. It's not a matter of resources, but of how resources are prioritized.

[Doug Tuthill]

The 17,000 low-income students who receive corporate scholarships are attending inner-city schools that, for the most part, are hanging on by a financial thread. Eliminating these scholarships would cause most of these schools to close and most of these primarily black and Hispanic students to return to traditional public schools. The short-term direct cost of educating these students in traditional public schools will be at least $2,000 more per child than the $3,750 value of the corporate scholarships, so eliminating this program will cost taxpayers money and reduce the money available for yearly teacher salaries.

Given the extraordinary success these schools are having with these low-income minority students the long-term financial and human costs of shutting down these schools will be high. The Times should send a reporter over to Yvonne Reed’s school on 34th Street South in St. Petersburg, which is a corporate scholarship school, and interview the students, teachers and parents and share their stories with Times readers.

[John Perry]

Doug, on what basis do you claim "extraordinary success" on the part of these schools? There is no accountability for these schools- the state of Florida can't tell you how they're doing, so how do you know with such certainty?

This program has a history of missing money, corruption, and money paid to schools that weren't schools. Since there's little-to-no accountability for where that money goes, that's no surprise.

You refer to these schools as "inner city schools." Over 80% are religious schools. That's money that would otherwise go in the public coffers being diverted to religous institutions. If the state weren't playing the tax credit shell game, this would already have been declared unconstitutional along with Florida's original voucher program which used tax revenue to do the same.

And you can't make a false comparison between the cost of one of these vouchers and the cost of educating the student in public schools. These vouchers DO NOT save public schools money. The program's February 2007 Report states that it currently serves 730 students in Hillsborough County. That might sound as if Hillsborough is being saved the expense of educating those 730 students. That would be misleading. Hillsborough has 206 standard K-12 schools and 73 centers. If, for the sake of argument, we assume that these students would all attend public schools if they didn't have these vouchers, they would be spread throughout Hillsborough County schools. That means that in any given school, maybe a few kids are lost to this program. Is that enough for them to reduce their expenses? If one public school loses a Kindergartener, a second grader, and two fifth graders to this voucher program, can the school then have less teachers? Less of anything? Not likely. In other words, the public schools lose the money, but likely won't be able to reduce expenses. That reality is the opposite of what you claim.

Also, sending reporters to a single school proves little, not even about that particular school, let alone about the 925 other schools receiving these vouchers. And other than the occasional scandal, we won't know anything about these schools because voucher hypocrits will never subject them to any accountability, let alone the kind of scrutiny public schools are under.

[Doug Tuthill]

John, thank-you for your response to my posting.

Florida is significantly under educating many black, Hispanic and low-income students. We need all of our assets working together if we are to fix this problem. That we have thousands of black, Hispanic and low-income parents, students, educators and community activists creating schools in their urban communities is a valuable asset we should embrace.

This Thursday, April 12, about 4,500 black and Hispanic low-income parents, students, educators and community activists will rally in Tallahassee in support of the corporate tax credit scholarships that help support their schools. This is a huge vote of confidence by the program’s participants. That some of our state’s leading Democrats will be speaking at this rally illustrates how much bipartisan support this program has.

I share your concerns about public accountability. When this program was first launched the accountability systems were too lax. Those problems have been addressed (http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?mode=View%20Statutes&SubMenu=1&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=220.187&URL=CH0220/Sec187.HTM), although some participating schools are now complaining about being over-regulated.

I also agree that Florida needs better policies and practices on how best to integrate religious-based providers into our public K-12 education system. We seem to have found acceptable approaches in post-secondary education and Pre-K, but we have work to do in K-12.

There’s another good article in today’s St. Pete Times about the new tone of civility and collaboration Governor Crist is bring to Tallahassee. I know the state’s education debates have been bitter and acrimonious over the last decade, but I hope we can all embrace the open-mindedness and civility that our new Governor is advocating without compromising our core values. I don’t think name calling (e.g., “voucher hypocrites”) is helpful.

[John Perry]

Doug, your post contains so many assumptions and generalizations that I could not possibly break it all down here. I will just touch on a few things.

You state that "Florida is significantly under educating many black, Hispanic and low-income students. We need all of our assets working together if we are to fix this problem." Ok. What do you mean by "under educating?" Are you referring, as I suspect, to standardized test scores? If so, what factors go into lower test scores? To what degree do standardized test scores reveal the quality of one's education as opposed to sorting by socio-economic status? To what degree does the school make an impact on such scores, and to what degree social factors outside the scope of the schools? Is there ANY proof that these voucher schools do ANY better? I'll answer that last one: Not a shred.

Do rallies and bipartisan support mean anything about the efficacy of a program? Of course not. Just look at the bipartisan train wreck otherwise referred to as No Child Left Behind. Rallying for “your” school does not prove in any way that it is better than the public schools those children would be attending otherwise. For all your confident pronouncements, Doug, you have no data to back them up, though I’m assuming you base your claim of “under educating” on test data. Why is data good for the goose, and not for the gander?

Complaints of voucher schools being “over regulated” are preposterous, as is your assertion that “those problems have been addressed.” Some accountability was finally established for these schools, but only the barest minimum, and even that is largely meaningless without sufficient DOE manpower or desire to do the job.

As far as “how best to integrate religious-based providers into our public K-12 education system,” it seems that the Florida Supreme Court has ruled that to be unconstitutional. The ruling only applied to one specific voucher program, but if other programs diverting money to religious institutions were challenged on the same basis, how many of them would survive? You mention Gov. Crist. What if he gets his way and Pre-K programs are required to have certified teachers by 2013? Doesn’t that rule out most of these religious schools who couldn’t afford to pay those kinds of costs? Or will would you rather continue with the woefully inadequate Pre-K we have currently? Couldn’t we do better by Pre-K if it were adequately funded and under the umbrella of the public schools (which are held to a much higher standard of accountability than private or parochial schools?). If the goal is to do education on the cheap, and that is the only criteria in the end, then perhaps religious providers might do the trick. If we want to maintain a healthy separation of church and state, and want to provide a quality free public education, a fair and equal playing field for all, then perhaps not. I realize that there are those in America that don’t believe in public education, so my arguments won’t be persuasive to them. I do.

I wholeheartedly welcome the new openness and bipartisanship brought to Tallahassee by Gov. Crist. It’s about time. On the other hand, that openness means this is the best time in a long time to unapologetically advocate for children and public education. When voucher proponents push hard for harsh, negative accountability systems for public schools while refusing to impose even the weakest accountability on private schools receiving public money, that is hypocrisy. You dismiss “voucher hypocrites” as name calling. I call it truth telling. Now THAT’S something we could use more of.

[Gloria Pipkin]

Doug, do you have a personal stake in a school that receives vouchers other than McKay scholarships?

Civility and open-mindedness in Tallahassee are certainly desirable qualties, but unless they're backed by meaningful action, they're not sufficient. Where's the FCAT reform our civil governor has hinted at?

[Doug Tuthill]

John, having meaningful dialogue about substantive issues in this medium is difficult to impossible. You have raised many important points about the nature of our data and the validity of the inferences we derive from those data, and I hope we someday find ourselves in forums where we can do these issues justice.

Some of us who have long advocated for public education see the corporate tax credit scholarship program as a valuable asset that helps children, families and communities, and strengthens public education. I know this is an unconventional position but I’m looking forward to discussing this assertion with you and others in the future.

By the way, I am very appreciative of the work you, Gloria and others have done on the proper use of the FCAT and standardized tests in general.

[John Perry]

Doug, you're right, this is a very limited forum for discussing such complex issues. Hopefully this is just the beginning.

Mr. Tuthill? I think it's unfair that you are checking out of the conversation, as you seem to be hinting, because it is a difficult medium in which to converse. You may not be able to do the topic justice, but that is no reason to halt give and take with an "opponent" who appears to have valid arguments against your pro-voucher stance. I would like to see this discussion continue.