PTOs donate $20K to schools

By John McDaid | Tuesday, 10 March 2009

With all the action currently happening at the finance subcommittee these days, the School Committee meeting tonight was sparsely attended — just 8 in the audience — which was a shame, because people missed some rare good news in these tight financial times.

The Portsmouth Middle School Parent Teacher Organization (PTO) donated $5,828 for the purchase of Elmo visual projectors, and the Hathawy PTO contributed $13,872 for the purchase of a new digital phone system for the building.

"That's 20-thousand dollars worth of things that we need. That is a phenomenal effort," said School Committee Chair Dick Carpender, thanking donors on behalf of the committee and noting that the money was filling gaps in the budget. "We see the same support from all the PTOs and booster groups. It is a real testament to the parents in this communty that they go out and do this."

In other action, there were first readings of a few policies: a staff laptop use policy, a revision to the donations policy to raise the threshold for School Commiittee approval from $1K to $5k, a calendar policy which set out the starting dates (if Labor Day is September 1,2, or 3, school starts after; If 4-7, the week prior), and student assignment to elementaries which explicitly reiterated the existing policy that there are no districts within Portsmouth and that students may be assigned to any school, based on a variety of factors.

Superintendent Susan Lusi announced that the report of the Future Search conference will be posted on the PSD web site tomorrow, and that the steering committee to continue the process had been selected and had met for the first time. They are charged with analyzing the Future search information (part 1, part 2), the student session, the Berkshire report, and survey data to be collected from all 6-12th graders. They will meet with the original Future Search participants in late May one last time before delivering a final report to the administration.

Assistant Superintedent Colleen Jermain announced that the schools are going green with newsletter distribution, with listservs replacing paper copies.

Facilities committee chair Mike Buddemeyer announced that the expanded membership had been chosen, and the now-18-member group would meet for the first time next Wednesday, March 18 at 5:30 in the PHS library. Buddemeyer also reminded everyone that the next Finance subcommittee meeting is tomorrow at 5pm at PHS.

Vice-Chair Sylvia Wedge made a pitch for everyone to attend two upcoming fundraisers, both scheduled for April 4: Elmhurst PTO's Nibbles and Bits, with hors d’ oeuvres and light cocktails in the Glen Manor House from 6:30-10:30 and the annual Sports Booster fundraiser at the Brick Alley Pub in Newport from 7-9pm.

Tags: 
Localblogging, 02871, School Committee

Comments

Portsmouth Citizen

Wed, 03/11/2009 - 1:50pm

These parent groups really must be congratulated. It ain't easy to raise money, and twenty grand is a sizable chuck of money. But I worry that this only further hides the problem we face, that our schools aren't properly funded. I'm reminded of the Performance Audit conclusion that the school department should not be relying on the annual success of parent donations and should instead have a budget that covers its expenses. From the Performance Audit Report:

"Insufficient resources have been budgeted to provide the instructional materials and supplies needed to support the curriculum. The $174,000 that was provided in the 2007-2008 budget ($58 per student) is far less than national standards that have been established related to instructional materials. Rather than continuing to rely on parent fund raising to close this gap, department leaders should develop a proposed budget that provides for the full cost of the instructional materials and supplies needed to support the state mandated curriculum. At a minimum the department should increase the per pupil allocation for instructional materials to $100 per student. This would result in an increase of approximately $126,000 from 2007-2008 funding."

We still have to address other issues, like teachers making an appropriate contribution to health insurance premiums (I know they contribute now, but the percent has to be more like the rest of the world). But even if we address those things, somehow someway someday we have to have our school budget match the reality of what it costs so that these parent groups can raise money for "nice" things like fancier art supplies, instead of essentials like classroom overhead projectors.

Viking

Wed, 03/11/2009 - 3:32pm

The auditors said we should pay more for school supplies, books, technology, and equipment – and I agree with them. Unfortunately, this is unlikely to happen to a meaningful extent without a tax increase. Certainly the teachers/union can do their share with things like the amount of health insurance co-pay – but that alone won’t generate enough money. Certainly the state could do more – it is the State that regulates the retirement plan – we in town have little to no influence in this matter.

The Town Council might be inclined to increase school expenditures – and even seek an over-ride on the tax cap. But this would happen ONLY if there was a LARGE public outcry asking for this. So far such an outcry is nowhere to be seen.

Sadly, those who most support the idea of supporting the schools are rarely seen at town meetings, and those that do rarely speak up. On the other hand, the “cut taxes no matter what the impact is on schools” faction seem to show up and speak out at every meeting.

I am glad the PTO was successful in coming up with a significant contribution. But I agree with "Portsmouth Citizen" that their contribution is not enough to achieve the goal of better equipped schools. PTO members s might be more effective by being more politically active, attending Town Council meetings regularly and speaking up frequently.

Sadly, human nature being what it is, I doubt this will happen. It is more likely that the schools will be forced to cut back more and more on any non-mandated matter they can cut – like late buses, and support for the arts and athletics. Books will continue to deteriorate and become obsolete, and computer capacity will become more and more inadequate for preparing children for today workplaces or college.

John McDaid

Wed, 03/11/2009 - 3:58pm

Hi, Portsmouth Citizen...
You are absolutely correct; parents should not need to be selling cookie dough to pay for the basics of education. This should be illegal, as it is in sports programs, where "pay to play" is not permitted. In Rhode Island, you cannot charge students to participate in athletics, and yet we have no problem shifting this invisible tax to parents when it comes to "pay to learn."

Should parents — or, indeed, anyone with a sense of fairness — be happy about this state of affairs? No.

PSD Finance Director Christine Tague estimated that PTOs kick in about $100K in direct donations each year, and my back of envelope estimate is that they contribute the equivalent of at least another $150K in volunteer hours. That's a quarter of a million dollars being shifted off the books because the Town is legally prevented from providing adequate funding.

But we are where we are, and all things being equal, I'd rather have my son going to a school where the teachers can pick up a phone on their desk and call the office. So yeah, I salute the PTOs for the amazing work they do. They all, every one, totally rock.

Cheers.
-j

p.s. Could I interest you in some cookie dough? :)

English

Wed, 03/11/2009 - 6:41pm

First of all, I really appreciate all that the PTOs, in all their manifestations, do for the schools. They make teachers' jobs easier and provide things the budget doesn't provide and I wholeheartedly applaud them (and I used to be part of them when kids were students in Portsmouth's schools). Second, I understand the call for teachers to pay more of our health insurance. However, when the public says "the percent has to be more like the rest of the world" (and I'm quoting Portsmouth Citizen only for expediency, not as an direct reply to the poster), I am curious what that percent is. There is a wide range of copays and employee contributions in the "rest of the world", just as there is in the public employee world. Some who suggest radically higher copays as some magic bullet are misinformed about what teachers pay, despite its being a matter of public record if one chooses to access it.
Be aware too that teachers dip into their own pockets to make sure our classrooms have what we need. We buy the cookie dough, coupon booklets, sweat pants, wrapping paper, candles (my favorite). I always try to order from at least one student any time a school group is having a fundraiser, and if I don't want to go to event, I will often just give a donation anyway. I buy paper, markers, binders and filler paper, etc, and keep a watchful eye for students who can't buy their own. If a student needs a bandaid or a tissue, I make sure they are available in my room. I also keep a stock of hand sanitizer, since the government only provided enough for one fill up of the dispensers now glued to our walls.
The bottom line is that the reason our school system is successful is that virtually all of citizens make sure that it cannot fail. We keep making do with less and working together to find creative solutions to problems. Hopefully, as we face probably the worst budget season in recent memory, we can continue to work together, respect ALL of our contributions to education, and not take the easy way out by blaming or scapegoating anyone.

Respectfully,
English

Portsmouth Citizen

Thu, 03/12/2009 - 5:20pm

Hi, English.

I know you said you were quoting me "only for expediency, not as an direct reply", and I appreciate that. Nonetheless, I feel I owe a direct response to the issue that I raised because you ask a very good question. I did say that teachers need to pay more of their health insurance premium, that it needs to be, "more like the rest of the world." Your question is that you are "curious what that percent is." It's a good question. I don't represent that I have done anything like a rigorous study of the issue, but I spent about a half hour researching and here is what I found.

English rightly points out that insurance so-shares vary widely in the private sector. Variability factors include size of employer, business sector, geographic region and whether you are in a population center or rural setting. Further complicating comparisons directed toward finding the "right number" is the great variability in health insurance plans. For example, a private sector employer can offer a plan with low insurance premium co-share, but high office visit co-pays and high annual deductibles -- a "cheap plan" in other words -- resulting in less overall cost to the employer, even though the employee co-share percent is "below average." Further complicating comparisons still is that much of the private sector has one tier co-share for single coverage and another co-share tier for family plans, where the school department has a one-size-fits-all percent co-share (I think -- at least that's how we seem to be talking about it).

With that as background, here are some interesting data.

There's a boat load of information at the website of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey which is part of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality which is a division of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. The "official numbers" if you will. From there, the figures for 2006 (the latest available) show that the national average premium co-share by employees enrolled in single coverage in the private sector in the "professional services" category is 16.5%. The national average co-share for family coverage is 24.8%. Looking at the numbers relevant to what is competitive regionally, the average premium co-share for single coverage in the private sector in the professional services category in Rhode Island is 12.2%. Same figure for Connecticut is 13.6%, Massachusetts is 21.6% and New Hampshire is 16.9%. Regional co-shares averages for family coverage: Connecticut is 22.7%, Massachusetts is 25.8% and New Hampshire is 28.6% -- the site shows Rhode Island's figure as 15.1% but there is an asterisk by that number indicating "Figure does not meet standard of reliability or precision", whatever we're supposed to glean from that.

These are averages in the private sector. Some pay more, some pay less.

My "right number" based on this data? It has to be more than 15%. National average for family coverage being 24.8%, I don't think it is fair to ask the workforce to go from where they are today (about 10% I think...) to that figure all at once. I think if you hit 20% you're in the ballpark. That said, if teachers prefer to have an insurance plan that costs less (with higher office visit co-pays and annual deductibles for example) to hedge their bets and take a lower premium co-share, that's a reasonable choice and would still represent a comparable arrangement to what is seen in the private sector. That will present a public relations issue for the school department, because even though they can point to money saved due to a cheaper plan, all the public will point to is the co-share figure and yell that teachers aren't carrying their weight.

And of course, there is no number that will please everyone. If you name a number, no matter what it is, lots of folks will yell and scream that they pay more than that. Worse yet, we all know there are some who think teachers should carry at least 50% of the cost and besides that they're all a bunch of lazy overpaid 180-day union slackers who are responsible for the downfall of society. I don't know any of those people, but if I did I would imagine that such a person might have the first name of Larry. That's just me and my imagination.

English

Fri, 03/13/2009 - 5:49pm

Portsmouth Citizen,
I thank you very much for doing research on this topic. Even though you say it was only about a half hour's worth, that's still more than most do before suggesting higher co-pays. And you are so right about the too frequent characterization of teachers - especially frequent during budget seasons. I'm not sure what constitutes the "professional services" category, but assuming it includes professions requiring college degrees, then the number for the average co-pay would be below the aggregate national average. It appears then that our district is below the regional average, but 25% would be more in line with the aggregate average for the area, not the professional figure. I think that because public school teachers engage in collective bargaining they are often not seen as "professionals" with college degrees. But whatever number is the "correct" one, and it will remain a mystery, the Larry's of the world will never see it as enough.

I know that both sides are working hard to come up with some creative solutions that require a little give and take from both sides, but do not rely on teachers to solve the national economic downturn. The real issues lie at the state level with the need for a consistent and fair funding formula, losing the reliance on property taxes for education, and negotiating health insurance at the state level or some real health care reform that removes health insurance from employment.

Peace, and thank you again for this interesting and civil exchange!
English