How can we get more teachers into the Huber Heights classrooms?

According to the Huber Heights City Schools website the school system has reduced the number of teachers since 2010 from 468 to 418 with another 64 scheduled (although the document doesn't say when).   If implemented this would be a total reduction of teachers of 114 / 24%.  It would be useful to know the number of students for the past 5 years.  Assuming the number has remained relatively stable (< 5% change) it seems logical to conclude the quality of instruction will be negatively affected.  It would be useful to know the number of teachers the administration calculated is needed for optimum instruction.  I feel cheated these types of evaluations are not published on the school's website or deliberated at school board meetings.  Not knowing this information makes it so I am less convicted of the next statement but...... I am comfortable concluding the optimum number of teachers is higher than 354.  Therefore, I'd like to start a discussion trying to figure out how we can get more teachers in the classrooms.  

If you read my pre-levy post on the schools you will see some avenues that I believe should be run to ground in order to make sure the school is getting the proper amount from the taxpayer and the State of Ohio. Figuring out some way to get the community to pass the November levy is another way.  There are two items that I believe would help proponents of this course of action.  First would be to figure out if my observation of lower taxes holds for the majority of the city.  

I'll address all the above in individual posts over the next couple of weeks.  The second item that I believe is key to getting the levy passed is meaningful concessions by the teaching staff.  For the purpose of this discussion lets define "meaningful" as contract provisions that makes it so that one third of the number of teacher reductions do not occur but the amount of money needed for teacher compensation stays the same as if the full teacher reductions occur.  Simply put if the teaching staff is willing to share the current amount budgeted for teacher salaries and benefits so that the schools can employ 392 teachers instead of 354 then this would be a good faith attempt by the teaching staff to help strengthen the schools.  I believe if the teaching staff negotiated a contract change with meaningful concessions it would make it much easier for levy proponents to succeed.  

So what would it take to get 38 more teachers employed without increasing the budget for salaries and benefits?  


District: Huber Heights City SD - Montgomery

 
There are a couple reasonable "concessions" that could be made by the power brokers in the union that would make it possible for the school to employ 38 more union members than the school currently plans to employ.
 
The first suggestion is to reduce union dues.  On election day I was at St Peters introducing myself to voters.  During the slower parts of the day I got to talk to some of the teachers that were out circulating the "Workplace Freedom" petition. I was very surprised that even first year teachers had to pay $750 a year in Union dues.  It was also ironic (or maybe causal?) that the Union had imposed a $22 assessment in order to fight the "Workplace Freedom" initiative.  The other thing I was told was that Union officials were collecting salaries of more than $100,000 a year.  $750 is 2% of $35,000 and 1% of $70,000.  If the union were able to cut their overhead for a couple years and just charge half dues then it is possible for the taxpayer to see a lower contract price while the union member doesn't lose any disposable income.
 
The second suggestion is to change the way teachers are selected for layoffs.  If the current contract structure is set up like traditional contracts with seniority being about the sole distinguishing factor determining what order people get laid off then by inversing that process and laying off the highest seniority first the school would be able to hire back a good chunk of the 38 teachers.  Roughly calculated the average salary of  for the 114 teachers currently being eliminated is $41,000 each and an average salary of for the top 76 teaching positions in Huber Heights is $78,500.  So the district will be saving $4,674,000 (+ health insurance etc) by eliminating the 114 lowest paid positions but they would only have to eliminate about 70 of the highest paid positions in order to get the same savings.  Of course, laying off the teachers with the most experience and training first doesn't make any more sense than laying of the least expensive first.  The fact is the school and students need the teaching staff to be a good mixture of young enthusiastic instructors and mature experts.  A properly constructed labor agreement that took into consideration the kids needs first would have develop some sort of procedure that ensures the proper mix of teachers in the event budget constraints make layoffs necessary.  These labor agreements should contain methods to mitigate the impact of the layoff for all affected teachers.  Perhaps the layoffs of the employees could be limited to 6 months and then rotated to one of the other instructors in that same seniority bracket.  It is likely the contract could be structured to entice some of the lower and mid level instructors to take an entire year off in order to concentrate completing the course work required for a Masters Degree or other professional development.
 
Adopting the first two suggestions gets about 30 of the target 38 instructors back into the classroom.  For those instructors still working it doesn't decrease their net salaries any.  The impact of teacher layoffs in this proposal is much less severe than the current practice and it may lead to those people becoming even better instructors.  The current practice of laying off instructors while they are newly developing their skills can only lead to a degradation of skills.
 
Another concession that could be made is a real reduction in salaries.   There the math should be pretty easy to figure out. 
In conclusion there are a number of different "concessions" the teachers and teachers union can make in order to be seen as serious partners in solving the problem of not enough teachers in the classrooms.  Finding the right mix and getting those negotiations completed by the end of Sept will be key in the eyes of many of the community. 

In Ohio we are lucky that in 1976 the State Legislator constructed the property tax law so that our school property taxes don't go up because housing values go up.  I know people think that if the county raises the valuation of their house that automatically means they will pay more in school property taxes.  However, the law says the total amount of money raised by the levy is constant.  There is no raise in taxes because of  "inflation".  Believe it or not this is different between inside millage (the primary City property tax) and outside millage (the primary school property tax).  This means that the schools don't automatically get extra money to be able to pay for cost of living raises or to pay the increase in medical insurance.  I personally believe this is the way the system should work.  However, this means that we as members of the community have to be willing to make responsible decisions on whether it is appropriate to give teachers and other school staff cost of living increases or other raises. 
 
A responsible decision isn't an automatic "no".  And those of you that keep saying, "I'm tired of them asking for money every election".  Remember, the alternative is for Ohio to change the property tax law so that it acts the way everyone thinks it does.  I personally prefer making a responsible decision on tax increase instead of ones that happen automatically. 
 
--------- I wrote about this previously in the article I wrote while trying to decide how to vote  last election.  I copied it below because I think it was well stated.  ---------
 
As you know I do not believe automatic cost of living raises make sense for a healthy fiscal environment.  As it turns out the 1976 Ohio House of Representatives didn't believe it either.  This led them to pass House Bill 920.  HB 920 works exactly how I believe the system should work in a world where housing values always go up.  I couldn't find a Montgomery County published explanation but here is a link to the Cuyahoga County Fiscal Officer explanation of HB 920.   Like I said in most of history this works exactly the way I think it should work.  School administrators don't like it though because it means they have to talk the public into voting teachers and administrators cost of living (and other) raises and it makes them either work to find cheaper health insurance coverage or beg the voters to cover the higher costs.  To see when it doesn't work though you need to actually go to the Ohio Revised Code and look at the law.  In this case you need to look at ORC 319.301 Determining and certifying tax reduction percentage for carryover property. 
 
Let me back up a little bit and talk about tax levies.  In Ohio we actually vote to give the school a certain amount of money.  The State complicates it by pretending we are voting on a millage.  In reality the school board tells the auditor they need $3.5 million a year, the auditor says today that equates to a millage of x.xx.  Then the levy is drafted stating the millage.  ORC 319.301 then makes sure that the schools never get more than $3.5 million a year by forcing the auditor to reduce the millage if housing prices go up. 

So we know that the voters of Huber Heights approved a number of operating levies.  As housing prices went up the millage rate was adjusted downward so that the total amount collected by the school wasn't more than the dollar amount the schools said they needed.  The problem with the law is that the House never considered that housing prices would go down.  Notice that the title of the law is "tax reduction percentage".  In fact, when you look at the formula and the wording of the law there is no provision for the auditor to reclaim the millage reduction.  This means that even when housing prices go down the millage is locked in at the lower rate and the schools don't get the money residents approved.  The net result is that it is possible that the voters of Huber Heights approved levies that were supposed to collect $29 million but because of the reduction in millage rates now only collect $26 million.  Notice that I say these numbers are possible.  I suspect that the amount collected is less than the amount approved but I haven't seen the school or any of the pro levy people figure out the actual difference.  I had heard the reduction was permanent previously but I didn’t start researching until last night.  In the hour and a half I spent looking for authoritative references I didn’t see any talk about this specifically. I didn’t see any authoritative reference pointing out that ORC 319.301 is a result of HB 920. I also didn’t see any discussion on how new houses are included in the calculation.  I spent an additional 30 minutes or so looking at the law but this isn’t enough to make me an authoritative reference.  So I have to leave open the possibility that new houses like those in Callamere Farms could make up the difference or even possibly allow for a higher total (this would even make sense, I’m not for automatic cost of living/inflation increases but if more houses mean more kids in the schools, it makes sense to get more money to the schools)