I just got back from the unfinished Pawtucket School Committee meeting. I had heard and seen enough. The Pawtucket Teachers Alliance contract was approved 4-3, and includes a pay freeze this year (but the "steps" raises will continue, so the net effect is NOT a flat salary budget), and 2% in FY 10 and 2% in FY11. The Teachers Alliance also agreed to pay a little more in health insurance and increased office visit copays.
The "Gang of Four" who approved this contract - in a year where the Pawtucket deficit is $8 million - are Amy Breault Zolt, Nicole Norquist, Joanne Bonollo, and James Chellel. The three taxpayer defenders are Chairman Dave Coughlin, Joseph Knight, and Raymond Noonan.
Additional facts: the contract still had one more year on it - so the teachers did not have to come to the table, but they did. The total savings agreed to in this one year will be $2.1 million. Very commendable. *applause*
BUT WAIT! The justification I heard from the 4 school committee members who voted to approve the contract was actually just fawning and falling over the teachers - who far outnumbered the non-teacher people in the audience.
No one says the Pawtucket teachers - heck, teachers all over the state! - do not deserve raises. The job can be very difficult, with challenges few citizens or parents know and appreciate, and even more parents just don't give a CRAP about. (In many cases, it IS the parents who are the root cause of the children's problems.)
But that doesn't change the fact that - WE CAN'T AFFORD IT!
I love my four children with all my heart. But in this economy, birthdays are getting cut back and Christmas will have fewer and less expensive gifts. Is it because I love my children less this year? THAT'S ABSURD. It's because I can't afford it.
What is equally absurd is foolishly going into DEBT to give my children the same or more than I have given them in years past when my living expenses were lower and I had more discretionary income. I DON'T ANYMORE. So how is going further into debt doing them any justice? Does it prove I love them more if I spend more? NO!
I work for a non-profit. I haven't had a raise in years. And I don't have a pension. And what I pay for health insurance increased, too. I am definitely worse off financially today than I was 5 years ago. Heck, I am worse off than I was a MONTH ago! There isn't one single expenditure I have - utilities, food, fuel, clothing, anything - that has gone DOWN or even stayed the same; everything has gone up. Except my pay.
But I am grateful for the salary I do get! I am grateful to have health insurance (although, thankfully I haven't needed it)! I just have to find ways - sometimes painful ways - to balance my budget and not go into debt to keep up a lifestyle that is no longer sustainable. My lifestyle has to change to match my reality.
WHAT ARE YOU THINKING, SCHOOL COMMITTEE MEMBERS WHO APPROVED THIS CONTRACT? You are responsible for making sure your budget matches reality, too.
Nicole Norquist waxed on about how generous it was that the teachers agreed not to take a pay raise; they are the 3rd lowest paid in the state already. Pawtucket Police and Fire are among the top paid in the state, and their "give backs" weren't nearly as generous in their recent union contract negotiations. SO WHAT? You are not responsible for Police and Fire - mind your own budget!
I see. So, my neighbor agrees to go into debt to make her kids happy at Christmas... I should do the same for my kids?
(Of course, later in the meeting, Ms. Norquist realized she had just thrown Police and Fire unions under the bus, so she tried to back-pedal and diminished her criticism.)
And Mr. Chellel, "grant" and "Title I" money that pays for certain programs comes out of my left pocket while you're picking my right pocket. Your logic isn't logical - it's disingenuous. Unless that program money comes from a private corporate grant, it's still my money and my neighbor's money.
Government does not earn wages. Government - municipal, State, and Federal - can only TAKE money from the true wage earners to pay for what government does.
Take effective action; do not dig a deeper trench of debt. Every single School Committee in Rhode Island should unite, march on the State House and demand the cowardly General Assembly come back into session armed with machetes to make the spending cuts necessary to resolve the mess it refused to address this summer. It's not the Governor - it's the legislature! AND NO NEW TAXES.
1. Unfunded mandates are NOT mandates anymore; they are off the table - and off taxpayers backs.
2. Certain aspects of the outrageously high Special Education budget need to be cut cut cut. Schools are NOT respite care facilities or "warehouses" as one speaker said, where parents abdicate care of their children from 8 to 2. If your child has special needs for transportation to and from medical appointments, arrange for the transportation yourself. School Departments should get OUT of the transportation business to get your disabled child to and from the doctor or therapist during school hours. If your child requires a nurse mate or personal assistant to care for bodily functions and maneuvering throughout the school building, it is the parent's responsibility to arrange and pay for that special aid, not the school budget.
School's responsibility is to teach a child to read, write in proper English, calculate mathematics, discover science, learn history... you know the list. Personal care and teaching life skills are inappropriate in any public school classroom.
3. English as a Second Language... oh my, this elephant in the room. It would be far more effective to have all children with English deficiency go to ONE school only. Immersion. A maximum of one year for young children, whose language acquisition skills are amazing. Two years MAX for mid-elementary school children. Up to three years for middle-to-high school students. Career ESL programs are a waste of money. One or two English-learning classes are a waste of time. It would be far more effective to keep a child "back" a year or two to fully prepare them for success in an all-English speaking curriculum, than to continue kicking them up the chain to keep them with their "peers." If they can't speak and comprehend the language well, kids the same age are not real peers - they are only the same age! These children only struggle their entire school career chasing English proficiency they will never achieve, sitting in "mainstream" classrooms as only part-time English learners.
And finally, the time for municipal, state and federal employee unions has come to an end. Compensation - salary and benefits - for government employees should NOT exceed the compensation of the taxpayers who pay them. Abolition of government worker unions may seem like pie-in-the-sky, because unions have become so powerful in Rhode Island over the decades. But they no longer fight for worker justice against dangerous working conditions as they did a hundred years ago; unions now arm-twist and promise campaign contributions and reelection votes, in exchange for largess for their members, to justify their continued existence. Unions are outdated and have outlived their true usefulness. They handcuff administrators who could affect real cost savings, while enhancing efficiency and effectiveness. Unions "disincentivize" creative solutions and individual achievement by lumping together lazy sloths and productive workers, based only on seniority. Government jobs should be public service, not a plum career.
I am proud of the three Pawtucket School Committee members who - while they acknowledge and appreciate the work done by teachers - put fiscal responsibility ahead of emotional capitulation headlong into avoidable debt.
