State Actions Followed By Individual Teacher Reactions

[Originally transmitted 6/28 on Elwood Community Network]

In [the June 28th edition of] Newsday, on page A5, there is an article titled "Battle Over Regents," which discusses the reaction, by high school principals across Long Island, to the State's decision to eliminate January Regents exams as one of it's cost-cutting measures.

For those of you who are Newsday subscribers away from home, or who are Optonline customers, you can read the story on Newsday's website at:
http://www.newsday.com/long-island/education/70-hs-principals-slam-regents-over-tests-1.2989598

This article does a good job of pointing out the negative spillover effects of the State's action on the January Regents, as well as some others which are also mentioned.

After this action was announced by the State about a month ago, we had a practical example in Elwood of what can happen when some individual teachers care more about students than they care about inflating their paychecks or their pension or other benefits.

At our June 15th Board of Education meeting, one interesting agenda item dealt with one of the most encouraging local human relations topics, combined with professional responsibility and fiscal responsibility, that I have witnessed in Elwood during the past ten years. It apparently all began with internal discussions pertaining to the State’s elimination of the January Regents examinations.

Now, just to be clear, that State action is not a positive element either in terms of human relations or professional or fiscal responsibility; the State, in recent years, hasn’t seemed to care very much for either of these aspects, and they seem to like laying down a smoke screen (think of movies showing Naval convoys during the Second World War) and trying to cast blame on local officials for failures (and worse) that were actually generated by the Governor, and Legislature, and their SED creation.

No, the positive aspect which demonstrates encouraging steps toward human caring, and combining that with professional and fiscal responsibility, came as a result of that negative action by the State Board of Regents.

Several Math teachers at Glenn recognized that the elimination of the January Math Regents exam would place some students, who failed the June exam (and the quick turnaround August make-up Regents exam), at risk of not being able to graduate on time.

Therefore, it was announced at the BOE meeting that three of the Math teachers in the Elwood School District volunteered to provide tutoring, and other support during the school day, to at-risk Math students; this would be done at no cost to the District (and naturally at no cost to those students or their parents) so that the students have a better chance of passing the Math Regents, which is one of the requirements for graduation.

These three noble teachers, Christina Kerensky-DeSimone, Eileen Kelly-Gorman, and Michael Prykuta, were recognized at the Board Meeting for their actions, and it demonstrates to me that there are indeed some very special -- and deeply caring --teachers in our District.

Whatever differences that we parents and residents might perceive, between the Elwood District Administration/BOE and the teachers union as a group, we have to keep in mind that there are still a number of teachers, and not just these three, who do indeed care enough to put the children first.

I have learned, over the past few days, that all of the students at risk did pass the June math Regents exam, which suggests that the generous and responsible offer by those three teachers will not be necessary; but the positive unselfish action by these teachers should be kept in mind by all of us, and hopefully by other staff members as well.

NY Times Article Offers Greater Insight About SED Measures

[Originally transmitted, on Elwood Community Network, 6/17]

In yesterday's NY Times, on page A23 (and presently available on nytimes.com), there was a very helpful article which provided greater perspective for the data which Newsday published yesterday, and which I highlighted in yesterday's commentary titled "SED Survey Shows Elwood Did Very Well With Class of 2010".

The Times pointed out why one particular category, in which Elwood happened to have the Second Best results among all eight school districts in the Town of Huntington -- just two percentage points behind leader Cold Spring Harbor -- is so important from a college preparedness perspective.

Sharon Otterman of The Times wrote:

"For many years, officials at the City University of New York and at community colleges across the state have raised questions about why so many students from public high schools seem to lack basic skills when they arrive on campuses, requiring extensive remediation. But Tuesday was the first time the state attempted to say how many seniors at each school were prepared to move on.

“This is talking about useful truths,” said Merryl H. Tisch, the chancellor of the Board of Regents. “We are all aware that this is very challenging, and that the tenacity of the achievement gap is undeniable. But the only way to correct the problem is to find something that allows you to state clearly where you are, and that’s what this is.”

The college-ready statistics, which the state formally called “aspirational performance measures,” were released alongside general graduation rates, which have been on the rise for about a decade and continued to inch up last year in the city and state."

Ms. Otterman went on to say:

"The formula for college readiness comes from an analysis of data from city community colleges, which found that scoring a 75 on the English Regents exam and an 80 on the math Regents roughly predicted that students would get at least a C in college-level courses in the same subjects. Scores below that meant students often had to take remedial classes before they could do college-level work."

Therefore, with Elwood's 2010 graduating students at Glenn scoring 80 percent on that indicator, they were better prepared than ONLY Cold Spring Harbor (82), among all districts in Suffolk County, and when you add in the Nassau County districts, Elwood was exceeded only by Jericho (87), Garden City (83), Cold Spring Harbor (82), Plainview-Old Bethpage (82), and they were equaled only by Manhasset (80).

Now, take a look at those very few districts, in all of Nassau and Suffolk, carefully.

Every one of them has a long-standing reputation of excellence.

Several of them represent districts of great average family wealth and little in the way of individual family need.

But, there we are; little Elwood, getting the most bang for our economic bucks, and trying to do better and better.

What greater case could be made for demonstrating our focus upon the goals of Kaizen, or Continuous Improvement?

Does that mean that we have achieved educational Nirvana? Hardly; we have other improvements to make, and you can never, never, rest on your laurels, because we have entered a global marketplace, and the students of so many countries continue to do better than the students of the USA.

But, this is part of a process, and we have to rejoice in such great improvements, even while acknowledging that we have further to go. And, as a measure of comparison with our peers in New York, we are certainly improving, and we are certainly doing extremely well among all ninety-eight districts, with high schools, in Nassau and Suffolk counties.

Once again, Wow!

SED Survey Shows Elwood Did Very Well With Class of 2010

Wow!

Every now and then, you see something that really makes you smile.

In today's edition of Newsday, on page A25, you will find the Nassau and Suffolk County results of the State Education Department's survey of high school seniors in the Class of 2010. I am only going to reproduce the results for the eight school districts in the Town of Huntington, but you will find that Elwood's results in comparison to all districts in both counties are just as impressive.

Anticipating that my AOL formatting may not transfer well for those of you using Optonline or some other ISP's, I will describe the five columns of data, after the name of each district, as follows:

A % of seniors graduating from high school

B % earning Regents diploma with Advanced Designation

C % achieving 80 or better on Regents Math exam, and 75 or better on Regents English exam

D % going on to two year colleges

E % going on to four-year colleges

Now for the Town of Huntington school district results. In an effort to make the over-all results even easier to appreciate, I have color-coded the positions (highest is best for A, B, C, and E, and lowest is best for D) as follows:
First Place, in Red; Second Place in Blue; Third Place in Green.

District___________A____B___C___ D___E

Cold Spring Harbor___98___77__ 82___2___95

Commack _________97___79___72___21__77

Elwood___________98___74___80___14__82

Half Hollow Hills____95___70___71____15__81

Harborfields _______98___72___77____19__77

Huntington________77____41___46___29__57

Northport/E Npt____93____56___65___24__68

South Huntington___ 90____43___51___31__59

With regard to these results, I would make the following observations:

1. Cold Spring Harbor is, by far, the most wealthy district in terms of household income, and also has one of the lowest property tax rates due to the very high value of individual home properties. They regularly have one of the highest average costs, per student, of educating the children in their district. Parents in that district, in general, can afford the finest tutors for their children -- if they should desire them -- and they can also afford private college tuition, at more prestigious, as well as average, as well as any other category of four year colleges. I would expect them to do as well as they obviously have done.

2. Elwood is now, and has always been, a district of average wealth -- pockets of affluence and pockets of great need and most in the middle -- in which most of the children do not benefit from the kind of family financial ability as do most of those in Cold Spring Harbor. Elwood does not have the same kind of average property values, nor do we have much in the way of commercial property values (as does Half Hollow Hills, or Northport, or even Huntington or South Huntington, which all have either large retail sectors or commercial or industrial sectors); accordingly, Elwood has had to make do, to the best of our creative abilities, with less.

But look at those results!

For many years, Elwood was a good district, a fine district, but it became myopically complacent and, as other districts advanced, we began to coast along. The vision, such as it was, became what I have called a "good enough" approach, with a resistance to change by some teaching staff, and even some Elwood-centric administrators.

Yet a regeneration was begun in this district in 2005, under a new Superintendent, Bill Swart, who had significant experience in many other districts on and off Long Island, and this regeneration reached its peak, two years ago, when Peter Scordo was brought in, by our prudent and prescient Board of Education, as our current Superintendent. Peter Scordo has been willing, and able, to go several steps further than Bill Swart, who seemed to occasionally cave in to staff resistance.

This SED summary is not the be-all and end-all justification for everything that we do, but it is a very powerful positive indicator, and we should express our gratitude to Peter Scordo, and Assistant Superintendent Maryann Llewellyn, and Glenn Principal Vincent Mulieri, and his teachers and other staff, and to the young men and women of Glenn who have accepted the challenge to do better, and indeed did.

Congratulations!

Analysis and Commentary - Budget Vote and BOE Election

[originally transmitted on Elwood Community Network, 5/20]

Now that I have had a chance to locate my records for previous Votes and Elections, it is possible to place this past Tuesday into greater perspective.

I was only able to find data as far back as 2003; in 2002, the first year I kept records, the budget did pass, and, in an election which followed the resignation of one trustee, two seats were contested and one was uncontested. That was also the only time that I ran for the BOE, unsuccessfully, so I do remember the broad results.

Budget Votes:

Year Yes No Total Votes

2011 1,779 (61.2%) 1,129 (38.8%) 2,908

2010 (#2) 1,970 (66.7%) 985 (33.3%) 2,955

2010 (#1) 1,088 (46.9%) 1,204 (53.1%) 2,322

2009 1,068 (69.9%) 460 (30.1%) 1,528

2008 1,160 (63.8%) 659 (36.2%) 1,819

2007 878 (61.8%) 543 (38.2%) 1,421

2006 1,561 (63.1%) 911 (36.9%) 2,472

2005 1,186 (52.4%) 1,079 (47.6%) 2,265

2004 1,217 (51.5%) 1,146 (48,5%) 2,363

2003 1,209 (56.7%) 924 (43.3%) 2,133





BOE Elections:

Year Candidates Votes

2011 A-Bill Gutekunst 1,382 (53.0%)

A-James Tomeo 1,227 (47.0%)

Total Votes 2,609


B-Mike LaMena 1,375 (55.3%)

B-Jack Schwartz 1,113 (44.7%)

Total Votes 2,488


2010 Uncontested Election


2009 Uncontested Election


2008 A-Mike Kaszubski 967 (80.9%)

A-Jennifer (?) Ilovsky 195 [write-in] (16.3%)

A-James Tomeo 33 [write-in] (2.8%)

Total Votes 1,195


B-Patty Matos 1,024 (59.4%)

B-Alex Resnick 612 (35.5%)

B-James Tomeo 84 [write-in] (4.9%)

B-Jennifer Ilovsky 3 [write-in] (0.2%)

Total Votes 1,723


2007 Uncontested Election


2006 A-Joe Fusaro 1,398 (56.4%)

A-Michael Williams 1,079 (43.6%)

Total Votes 2,477


B-Dan Cicone 1,405 (56.9%)

B-Cheryl Gabrielli 1,064 (43.1%)

Total Votes 2,469


2005 Uncontested Election


2004 A-Julie Badlato 1,249 (53.0%)

A-Bill Cameron 1,106 (47.0%)

Total Votes 2,355


2003 A-Joe Fusaro 1,169 (57.4%)

A-Brian Madden 868 (42.6%)

Total Votes 2,037


B-Dan Ciccone 1,042 (53.5%)

B-John Santomauro 904 (46.5%)

Total Votes 1,946


Derivative Commentary:

School Budget

The first thing you should note is that the 2011 total of 2,908 in the School Budget Vote was the second-highest over the past nine years, with only the second 2010 vote (the June re-vote after the original Proposed Budget was rejected in May) higher at 2,955.

But that also means that this was the highest original May vote total on record, which is absolutely amazing, particularly on such a dreary wet day.

I’m not sure what we can make of vote margins over these nine years, as the Budget Increase and the Tax Levy Increase fluctuated considerably over this time, since our District and BOE have historically not tried to pull the wool over the eyes of its residents, as have many districts on Long Island.

Elwood has not secretly over-taxed its residents in one year in order to “magically” pull money out of a hat in another year; therefore, the budget and tax numbers have reflected more candid economics, and they have demonstrated more respect for the integrity of taxpayers.

Of course, in some years, it has been a blessing, and in other years it has been a real burden, particularly when the State gives us the shaft while costs soar into the stratosphere.

But the Total Votes count is certainly real, and the heavy involvement of the past few years has been a testimony to the people of this community.


BOE Election

This is where the size and shape of the budget have generally mattered much less, although it was one of the factors in 2004, and might have been a factor in 2003.

Looking back over the years, and saving 2011 for last, I would note that 2008 was a contested election, but the effective contest was really just with one seat, as Mike Kaszubski did not have an opponent who bothered to submit Nominating Petitions, and his only opposition were write-in candidates.

Patty Matos did have an active opponent on the ballot, but the support for that opponent was primarily in a relatively small, though quite vocal, single focus group of core supporters. Naturally the “usual” antagonists of the District and the current Board (in the sense of Casablanca, where Claude Rains, standing with Humphrey Bogart, instructs his next in command to round up the “usual” group) did tag along, and tried some last minute machinations, but the results made it clear how ineffective that was. The “usual” antagonists learned from that in 2011.

The previous contested campaign was in 2006, and that was the dirtiest and nastiest election that I can remember in my eleven years since taking early retirement gave me time to get involved. A smear campaign really began at a few BOE meetings (I’ve kept my notes from those meetings, and even obtained under FOIL an official transcript of the BOE dialogue on the worst night), and some campaigners, or campaign workers, tried to impugn the integrity of one of the successful candidates with the same male bovine manure.

Captain Louis Renault would not have been surprised by the suspects.

In 2004, we had a contested election in which a trustee with superior intellectual skills, but abysmal inter-personal skills (he would even tick off his friends), lost an election partially for reasons of sometimes being insensitively arrogant, and partially for being on the BOE at a challenging time, but also -- and given the margin, and the timing, I believe primarily -- because a former trustee, who had been rejected by the voters after only a one year term on the BOE, issued a letter that arrived on the Saturday before the Tuesday election, making a number of distorted and mathematically inaccurate statements that seemed designed to confuse and frighten voters, and then asked people to support the incumbent’s opponent.

And finally, in 2003 we had what now seems like the cleanest election in memory, yet it was a hotly contested election that was at least based upon honest intellectual disagreements between candidates. I don’t recall any dirty tricks, or maligning of the personal integrity of the candidates, and it would be nice if we could return to a time when distortions were not the primary tool of opponents, and when appeals were to intellect rather than to emotion or popularity contests, and when all candidates focused upon what was good for the students and the taxpayers of the community.

In 2011 we had way too much in the way of personal popularity appeals, including the soliciting of some voters who seemed to know nothing about the issues, or of the problems of school districts on Long Island or in New York State in general, and who were not even told the whole truth, by some candidates, about the nature and economic reality of theoretical concessions by a union.

Greed will no longer do.

Selflessness is desperately needed, and selfishness must be rejected.

Personal resentment by some former employees, and a focus upon union interests by other former employees, do not belong in BOE elections, and some electioneering activities were, quite simply, unseemly.

Our problems, and the problems of other school districts, are by no means over, and it would be helpful for the good of the students and for the good of the community and for the good of the taxpayers, and, yes, for the good of the younger generation of teachers and other staff, if everyone would convert their energy and efforts into a positive approach that recognizes that we are indeed, all of us, in this together.

Shared sacrifice, by all parties, is desperately needed.

Finally, we need a cathartic effect in Albany, so that the unfunded mandates, and the absurd pension system, and the strangling and constricting restrictions on personnel management, are finally corrected.

But, it must start here with us, now, and we can no longer afford the effects of the negativity of the usual antagonists and their allies.

Let’s make 2011/12 a much better year for Elwood.

Budget Passes and Rationality Prevails With BOE

[originally transmitted on Elwood Community Network, 5/18]

This will be a very quick synopsis, for the sake of timeliness; a detailed commentary will (I hope) be produced on Wednesday.

Budget Vote

Despite the very large proposed tax increase that would be required by a modest proposed increase in the school budget for 2011/12, the voters of Elwood, in overwhelming numbers, passed the budget by 1,779 YES votes (61.2%) to 1,129 NO votes (38.8%).

The total votes on the Budget were 2,908.

A hotly contested BOE Trustee election always brings a large voter turnout, and today, despite the generally miserable weather, was no exception. We can attribute the large YES tally to the fact that all four candidates, while approaching the Trustee election from very different standpoints, as well as the nature of the candidates' appeals, each expressed support of the budget (although each one of them, at the Candidates Debate, also expressed reservations -- of varying degrees and substance -- about the budget).

Therefore, we undoubtedly saw a majority of each candidate's electoral support also supporting the budget, and that led to a materially higher YES vote than one would have expected from such a high tax levy perspective.

BOE Election

The winners of the two seats, one vacated by the retiring Mike Kaszubski and the other vacated by the retiring Patty Matos, were Bill Gutekunst and Mike LaMena, respectively.

Each winner had a very comfortable margin over his competitor.


Kaszubski seat:

Bill Gutekunst 1,382 (53.0%)

James Tomeo 1,227 (47.0%)

Total Votes 2,609


Matos seat:

Mike LaMena 1,375 (55.3%)

Jack Schwartz 1,113 (44.7%)

Total Votes 2,488


Clearly, the campaign linked the candidacies of Gutekunst and LaMena, as well as Tomeo and Schwartz.

In my judgment, the Gutekunst/LaMena campaign concentrated on substance and the future of the district, while the Tomeo/Schwartz campaign relied upon personal popularity and associations with the past. I believe that the district will be much better off with the success of the Gutekunst/LaMena efforts, but I would encourage both Mr. Tomeo and Mr. Schwartz to redirect their time and efforts to serving the district, and learning more about our challenges in this trying time.

Losing an election is never fun, as I found out the one time I ran in 2002 against administrative and union opposition, but it gave me the opportunity to reinvigorate and learn. I had all the incentive I needed to redirect my own energies, initially into the PTA organization and later, after a reform movement led by Mike Kaszubski and Joe Fusaro and Dan Ciccone brought candor and disclosure and created the opportunity for citizen participation, by serving diligently on Board and District committees.

Both Mr. Tomeo and Mr. Schwartz now have the incentive to do that, not only for the benefit of the district and its students, but for their own benefit as well.

Congratulations to Bill Gutekunst.

Congratulations to Mike LaMena.

And let's pass along our sympathies for their spouses, who will surely see less of them for the next three years. Whether you like a particular trustee, or not, you have to respect them for their dedication of time and energy into a sometimes thankless and always difficult job.

Elwood survives and thrives.

Yet Another District Labor Unit Has Agreed to Major Cost-Savings Measures

[originally transmitted on Elwood Community Network, 5/16]

Coming just about a week after the District's Custodial Staff courageously, and responsibly, agreed to significant concessions (without onerous and budget-busting demands), our District's Paraprofessional Staff "...have agreed upon the terms for a new contract that will freeze salaries and steps for the next year."

This is also a wonderful decision by these very dedicated employees, who now join the Custodial Staff, who had joined the District's Central Office Administrators (again, without future budget-busting demands), who joined the one who started the compensation cost-savings efforts (again, and certainly, without future budget-busting demands), our innovative Superintendent of Schools.

Clearly, some people really care about the students and the District and the taxpayers more than they care about any selfish personal financial gain. They also recognize that we are all, indeed, in this together, and the long-term health of the District is in everyone's best interests.

The announcement, pasted below in its entirety, was posted on the District's website tonight.

Jerry Hannon

................................................
Paraprofessional Staff Agrees to New Contract with Capped Increases

The Elwood Paraprofessional Union and the Elwood Board of Education have agreed upon the terms for a new contract that will freeze salaries and steps for the next year.

This three-year agreement, coming just a week after the Elwood custodial unit agreed to significant contract concessions, adds another 50 Elwood employees to the staff who are doing their part to help the district’s children and residents.

Most paraprofessionals in Elwood are community residents who generally work part-time, supporting our programs for students by assisting staff, working in the cafeterias, and helping students with special needs.

The new agreement calls for a complete freeze with neither overall nor step increases for the 2011-12 school year. The initial year is followed by two additional contractual years that will not increase salaries and longevity above 2% in each year and may be lower, depending upon implementation of a state tax cap, and it freezes step increases in both additional years as well. It should also be noted that this agreement represents the entirety of the increase in compensation.

The Board provides thanks our paraprofessionals for joining our custodians, central administrators and Superintendent of Schools in their concessions aimed to preserve the programs, services, and staffing on behalf of the Elwood community.

Sensible Board Representation At Stake As Labor Contracts Approach

[originally transmitted on Elwood Community Network, 5/16]

Tomorrow, from 2 PM to 10 PM, in the cafeteria of Elwood Middle School, we have our annual vote for Board of Education trustees, as well as the annual School Budget Vote. I urge everyone to participate and vote on an informed and unemotional basis.

Both the BOE election and the budget vote are obviously important, and while people may understandably disagree about the size of the budget increase, I am most concerned about the risk to the district if we were to get new trustees who might not be sufficiently diligent in representing the District, its students, and its taxpayers, as the time approaches for a new teachers union contract, which currently expires on July 1st of 2014. Whomever is elected tomorrow will be on the Board through June 30th of 2014, and will be one of those who are responsible for renegotiating that contract.

That fact is all the more important considering the financial crisis that this and every District increasingly faces, because of past and threatened future State actions, and energy and health insurance escalation, as well as the impacts on so many residents due to the long-term recession.

It is always better to have positive reasons to support someone for election, and I think that this community is blessed by the quality of two of the candidates: (1) Bill Gutekunst, candidate for the seat currently held by Mike Kaszubski; and, (2) Mike LaMena, candidate for the seat currently held by Patty Matos.

All of you received my summary of the BOE Candidates Debate, which contained not only responses from the four candidates but also an analysis of some key points for the district, its students, and its residents. That summary contains my analysis of the specific reasons that both Mr. Gutekunst and Mr. LeMena are the best candidates for their respective races, and if you did not retain a copy, but want to read it again, you may also access the piece on my blog, Elwood Illuminations (http://elwoodilluminations.blogspot.com/2011/05/boe-candidates-debate-and-other.html).

I will personally vote for Bill Gutekunst, and for Mike LaMena, and would urge everyone to consider the very positive reasons, outlined in the BOE Candidates Debate summary, for doing the same.

But, there are also reasons for me to have concern regarding their opponents, James Tomeo and Jack Schwartz, respectively, and I think you should know why, in my opinion, that is the case.

During the Question and Answer period, the answers given by both Mr. Tomeo, and by Mr. Schwartz, seemed much too similar on several points.

One of these points related to the previous cost-reduction offers to the district, over the past months, by the Elwood Teachers Alliance, which is the union for Elwood's teachers. As outlined in the previously-referenced summary from the Candidates Debate, Mr. Tomeo and Mr. Schwartz seemed very sympathetic to the union's offer. However, that second offer would have required the District to extend the teachers contract for another two years, at an assured annual increase (plus Step) for those two years, and the cost for that extended period would have been much more than the partial freeze which the teachers union would have agreed to take.

In one of his replies, Mr. Gutekunst pointed out that the benefit to the district would have been approximately $300,000 for each of the next two years, or about $600,000 total, but the cost to be weighed against that short-term benefit was $1,000,000 for each of the two years extended.

I don't know about you, but if some bank was offering me $1,000,000 in 2015, if I would give them a deposit of $300,000 in 2012, I would be a fool not to do that. That would be one super rate of return, something that Bernie Madoff would have been happy to offer his investors.

Fortunately for the health and well-being of the District, the Board of Education rejected the union's offer, and this paragraph, which I cited in my community commentary on April 16th (and which is available on Elwood Illuminations at: http://elwoodilluminations.blogspot.com/2011/05/district-has-posted-reply-to-2nd.html), was the heart of the Board's reasoning:

"The request to extend your contract for two years, through June 2016, in light of diminishing state aid, and a looming tax cap with no specific guarantee of mandate relief, leaves us unable to extend a further financial commitment to your unit members. Simply put, we are unable to write you a check now without knowing if we will be able cover the expense. If we were to make such a commitment, the future increase of salary expense you proposed will put us above the tax cap and our only recourse would be to eliminate jobs and/or valuable programs."

I find it amazing that Mr. Tomeo and Mr. Schwartz could not appreciate the danger, for the District, which would have been created if the Board had accepted the teachers union's offer.

These two candidates also had a close approach when it came to discussing a potential State cap for superintendents' compensation. They conveniently ignored the importance of looking at the compensation for a superintendent of schools in contrast with the compensation for a district's teaching staff. Neither took the logical step of comparing the materiality of cost for a superintendent (typically between 1/4 of 1% to 1/2 of 1% of a school district's budget) with the cost for a teaching staff (typically between 65% to 70% of a school district's budget). Neither spoke about compensation from the perspective of merit.

Is it possible that ignoring the elephant in the room, in favor of focusing upon the mouse, is a tactic?

Having done a FOIL of the Nominating Petitions for all candidates, I do have my concerns about the ability of Mr. Tomeo and Mr. Schwartz to maintain independence and to be diligent when it comes to union contracts.

But, let's vote for Mr. Gutekunst and Mr. LaMena for the very positive reasons that we all have, and let's hope that Mr. Tomeo and Mr. Schwartz evolve in their own understanding of the economics of running a school district, and the importance of understanding a Net Present Value approach when considering offers.

Jerry Hannon