PINE RICHLAND RESIDENTS...increase in school taxes/teacher contract negotiations....are you concerned? (Pittsburgh: fit in, real estate)

[GVmove]

Originally Posted by eccotecc

GVmove,

The unions are another issue so I won't address that comment for the sake of staying on the topic at hand.

As I see it, to piggyback on your previous post, there are residents in the township that have children in the school district and residents who don't. From the perspective of the residents who don't have children I can see their concern for the increase in taxes especially if it causes economic hardships. I'm sure they are feeling a lack of equity in the current system without the hope of improvement in the future.

There needs to be a change, but is it up to the teachers to make these changes or your elected public officials? I think the public needs to focus their concerns in another direction.

You appear to be missing the point here and I'm confused as to your involvement and input on this thread. According to an earlier post, you are a resident of the state of California.

FYI...one couple as residents of this district have pulled their children out of the district for many reasons including cost over runs in directions that do benfit the education of their children.

Since you do not reside here, you would also not have knowledge to the total inequity in the district. If one does not have school age children in the district, they are not made privy to any letters from the district superintendant regarding costs. If they choose to be made aware, they must contact the administrative office with their contact information. This would be all well and good if these folks without children were not paying the same taxes as those folks with children attending the district schools.

Again, confused over your input unless you are just killing time on a Saturday afternoon. No problem with that, other than the original thread was an attempt to accomplish something productive for the residents of this district.

[Hopes]

Originally Posted by southeastlady

According to the official salary schedule, there are 66 teachers that make an access of $92,000 per year.

Teacher's only contribute 5% towards their benefit plan.

The teacher's also work a total of 193 days a year.

You must be new to the area. That's what teachers make in the best school districts in Allegheny County.

Salaries aren't the problem at Pine Richland. It's the CRAZY spending on super expensive sports complexes!

[TimeWellSpent]

I'd love to talk to you about this for a story in Pine-Richland Patch. I am at nearly every meeting, but missed the July 16 meeting because I was out of town visiting family. Please contact Cindy Cusic Micco at cindy.micco@patch.com or 724-799-9982.

Thanks, Cindy

[Mtl-Cns]

Originally Posted by TimeWellSpent

I'd love to talk to you about this for a story in Pine-Richland Patch. I am at nearly every meeting, but missed the July 16 meeting because I was out of town visiting family. Please contact Cindy Cusic Micco at cindy.micco@patch.com or 724-799-9982.

Thanks, Cindy

Every meeting?!? Really??? Yikes! Perhaps I'm misinterpreting but.... Rough... Sounds anything but impartial.

[Retiredcoach]

As a point of interest...... At the last school board meeting in Pine-Richland (July 16), the district administration was voted a 3% raise. These are not the union employees, but the principals, assistant principals, the psychologists, superintendent/ assistant superintendents, non-teaching department heads, and other members of central administration. This is in a school district that pleaded dire financial circumstances in June, laying off a number of teachers and cutting educational expenditures. This is also a district under the leadership of said administrators that has a high school on the state's watch list for under-performing on the state testing. This is a district where the teachers do not have a contract and are negotiating but will expect raises matching the administration. Maybe it is time for Pennsylvania to follow the same path as Ohio, and that is, a referendum needing to be passed before any school taxes are increased- directly placing the decisions in the hands of those paying the bills, not those who seemingly have lost track of fiscal priorities.

[ditchdigger]

If one does not have school age children in the district, they are not made privy to any letters from the district superintendant regarding costs. If they choose to be made aware, they must contact the administrative office with their contact information. This would be all well and good if these folks without children were not paying the same taxes as those folks with children attending the district schools.

So, the district is not expending paper and postage on people who may not be interested in getting the information, only on those who've specifically requested it. Sounds fiscally responsible to me...

[southeastlady]

Originally Posted by ditchdigger

So, the district is not expending paper and postage on people who may not be interested in getting the information, only on those who've specifically requested it. Sounds fiscally responsible to me...

FYI...this district information from the superintendent is sent "electronically"!

This community has a large percentage of an aging population. Some of these people do not use computers. These folks should be receiving the superintendent's staus reports, etc via snail mail.

If anyone is concerned over the district expenditure for this snail mail, the district could cover this more than adequately by cutting one of the 3 coaches for the girls LaCross team.

The bottom line is that this district is not transparent and forthright in keeping EVERY TAXPAYER properly informed.

[southeastlady]

Originally Posted by Retiredcoach

As a point of interest...... At the last school board meeting in Pine-Richland (July 16), the district administration was voted a 3% raise. These are not the union employees, but the principals, assistant principals, the psychologists, superintendent/ assistant superintendents, non-teaching department heads, and other members of central administration. This is in a school district that pleaded dire financial circumstances in June, laying off a number of teachers and cutting educational expenditures. This is also a district under the leadership of said administrators that has a high school on the state's watch list for under-performing on the state testing. This is a district where the teachers do not have a contract and are negotiating but will expect raises matching the administration. Maybe it is time for Pennsylvania to follow the same path as Ohio, and that is, a referendum needing to be passed before any school taxes are increased- directly placing the decisions in the hands of those paying the bills, not those who seemingly have lost track of fiscal priorities.

Dear Coach,

You raise some really valid points here.

Where can tax payer's access information on the state's watch list for under-performing districts on state testing?

Everyone from teacher up through the superintendent should be on a "pay for performance" scale, and the most critical element should be the "performance" of the students.

It is my understanding that the administrative staff has functioned under a "pay freeze" up until what the Board recently approved. The grass roots folks presented in their petition a request that the union members voluntarily freeze their wages for the next year.

Since the bargaining teams had been meeting since last January and have yet to reach a settlement, the union reps have artfully stretched this thing out and now know what is budgeted for pay increase and what the staff accorded to themselves. This is akin to playing a poker game when only your cards are face up.

I agree that we should pay close attention to not only what is happening in Ohio, but also the necessary changes that occurred in Wisconsin.

[Velvet Jones]

Originally Posted by h_curtis

Seems there is some history in the Pine Richland district. They were going to cut Physical education and some other subject as well as raise property taxes over 4%. Seem the average school tax bill in PR is about $3700 a year for residents. Oh yeah, that is JUST the school tax each and every year. So you have a district looking to cut things for students AND they have that kind of money coming in from the average resident. Something is clearly broken.

I thought four semesters of high school Phys-ed was state mandate for graduation. Has this requirement been removed?

All of these SDs are screwed. Retirement benefits will eventually run them all in to the ground. It's just hitting certain districts sooner rather than later. Hampton will be the next to get hit. They had an explosion of population in the late 70s that caused an drastic increase in increasing in hiring. That wave of teachers is getting ready to retire.

[Hopes]

Originally Posted by southeastlady

FYI...this district information from the superintendent is sent "electronically"!

I hope you are aware that the real power is with the school board, not the superintendent's office. If you want influence, run for the school board. At the very least, attend the school board meetings, not this silly meeting created for people "concerned" about increased taxes. School board meetings are open to the public. I read in the newspaper that the public attending the school board meeting overwhelmingly supported an increase in taxes to prevent music and arts from being cut. If your group of elderly anti-tax residents were there, maybe the vote would have gone differently.

Originally Posted by southeastlady

This community has a large percentage of an aging population.

Those empty nesters sure benefited from the school district when they had children, while the previous aged population paid taxes.