Penny wise and pound foolish was the theme of the ACPS School Board meeting on February 20, 2003.  Educational leadership was not the focus of this meeting.  In fact, it wasn’t even mentioned.  The meeting centered around how the snow days could be made up without costing the school system more money and how to increase instructional time without paying the teachers more.  The discussion brought to light an ‘us’ versus ‘them’ attitude which could be very divisive in the long run.

 The meeting started off with a brief presentation on the green school concept. The young idealist who spoke in defense of green schools was no maven, connector nor salesman.  His facts about saving the environment and money were lost in his lackluster presentation style.  Starting this coming year, T.C. Williams High School is going to be redesigned and rebuilt.  This is the perfect time for an advocate for environmentally friendly school design, so that students can live the impact of ecology rather than just take a course about it.  But the message received a gentle, ‘thank-you’ and the chairman moved on to the next item on the agenda.

The next item dealt with snow.  Why were the schools closed for so long?  Why weren’t the school parking lots plowed before the local parks?  Why do we have an action plan for terrorist acts, earthquakes and fires but not for snow?  Why does the school district have to depend on city personnel and city plans for snow removal?  Why doesn’t the school district have its own equipment?  After considerable discussion and no resolution, the Board moved on to how to make up the snow days.  And snow days moved the Board to look at the calendar for the rest of the year as well as next year.  During the discussion of both these issues, the underlying attitude was one which had more concern for getting the most out of the teachers rather than what was best for the students.

Making up snow days and adding instructional hours to the calendar both have budget implications.  One member said that the school day could and should be lengthened to increase instructional time.   A member jumped in to say that teachers wouldn’t accept more hours without extra pay.  A number of members answered with comments to the effect that teachers already earned enough or even too much money for the hours they work.  The new pay scale which goes into effect this coming year was mentioned as a way that teachers would already be losing pay.  “So what if the teachers lose a little? The decreases won’t have a ‘lifestyle effect’,” was the comment of one member.   More comments, which set the teachers on one side of a line and the Board on the other, were made by Board members.  At the end of this discussion, the Board decided that dealing with the teachers and the teachers’ association would be too difficult now since the entire School Board was up for election in 2003.  They chuckled as they set increasing instructional time aside for the new Board.

At one point during the meeting, a member said in response to the remark that teachers would not notice if 10 or 15 minutes were added to their contract, that there needed to be open communication and even information saturation when dealing with increased hours with no compensation.  That was the only remark which insinuated respect for teachers.  The response was a suggestion for a “forum for teachers to express their issues and to give them a chance to speak in a non-confrontational forum and to get ‘them’ to buy into ‘our’ issues.  The superintendent pointed out that the added instructional time increased the teachers’ contracts by 10 working days.  A Board member pointed out that the contracts do not specify ‘hours’ and so there might be a contract loop hold.  It was decided that they needed a ‘meet and confer’ discussion of administrative procedures but now was not the time.

When the superintendent addressed the Board, she mentioned that it was School Board Appreciation month.  She thanked the Board for their hard work and told them that they should vote themselves a raise.  She continued to say that the members worked hard and that their compensation was not enough for the job they do.  As the rest of the meeting centered around the budget shortfalls, the ironic twist of that statement emphasized the chasm between ‘them’ on the Board and the teachers.  There was not enough money to compensate the teachers for added hours but the Board deserved a raise.

If the Board continues to see two camps rather than one group working towards the same goal of educational excellence then there will be issues.  In this era of teacher shortages, teachers have the option of changing districts.  It is easy to get a job in a district that treats teachers with more respect.  Also, with Boards fighting paying teachers for hours worked, teachers can decide to pursue other careers.  Teaching has been seen as a second income career for many families or as a bridge job while deciding on a profession.  With a high number of career switchers coming into the profession, many older workers will not tolerate being treated with a lack of respect.

Another effect could be more political activism by the teachers as seen in Olympia, Washington this past month when the Education Association took to the airwaves with commercials exposing the unfair practices of state legislature.  Also, association membership could increase as more and more teachers look to a legal representative to help solve penny-pinching school board policies.

By looking at the teachers as the high cost budget item, the Board also sets itself up as an adversary between teachers and administrators.  The Board decides on the pay policy and the principal has to deal with the consequences of an unhappy group of teachers.  With the new pay scale next year comes the beginning of merit pay or performance pay.  The principal will have to decide who is worthy of the extra money now that step raises will not be automatic.  The subjective criteria for deciding has the potential to cause even more infighting (until the Board decides that the pay for performance [PEP] program will not work and rescinds it).

How can the ‘them’ and ‘us’ division be avoided and even bridged?  The Board must look at itself, with the superintendent, as the educational leaders for the school system.  The prime goal must be what is best for the students.  Keeping good teachers in the system has to be seen as a goal of Board policies.  Teachers do not demand the impossible.  They want respect for a job well done and just compensation for the hours in the classroom.    The forum sounds like a good idea, but not for one group to try to influence the other.  It might come as a surprise that the teachers and the Board members want the same thing: what’s best for the children entrusted to them.