Snowflake Schools: Spin Cycles

As we’ve discussed previously (see When Boards Stop Listening), Hinsdale Township High School District #86’s school board is now controlled by a 4-3 majority of Ed Corcoran, Claudia Manley, Victor Casini, and Rick Skoda.  Nobody’s complaining about the democratic process which put them in place; the voters of District #86 made the decision that these were the best people for the difficult job of school board member from the candidates on the ballot.  (Yes, the turnout in the election which established this majority in 2013 was less than 20% of registered voters, but District #86 residents looking to assign blame for that should find the nearest mirror.)  The problem that continues to escalate is the way in which these four seem intent on pursuing their own agenda, regardless of what other significant participants in making the district run think.  And it’s not just the three other board members (Jennifer Planson, Mike Kuhn, and Kay Gallo) in whose input they seem uninterested; now it appears they’re gearing up to battle the teachers.

In case you didn’t know, I was one of those teachers for twenty-five years, working in Hinsdale South’s English Department.  I also interacted with many school board members in my capacity as a teachers’ union negotiator over a fifteen-year period, serving as chief spokesperson for the teachers in 2003  and 2006 contract talks. 

The things which caught my attention recently were “An Open Letter to the Hinsdale Township High School District 86 Community,” which was read by Manley and approved by the board at its April 7th meeting and another open letter sent to the Patch by Corcoran on April 24.  (You can open both these letters here [when clicking on any links to the District #86 website, as this one is, just click on “Cancel” when asked for a password to proceed to the page] and here )   

The oddest parts of Manley’s letter, to an old union activist like me, were the comments about the ongoing teachers’ contract negotiations.  During all the negotiations sessions in which I participated (some eight in District #86 with many different board members), one of the first ground rules to which both sides would agree prior to starting the process was that neither side would make unilateral public announcements about negotiations.  The goal was to keep things as calm as possible so that both sides would have room to move, that nothing which was floated during preliminary discussions could be manipulated by either side to generate a public clamor which might impede the final goal—a new contract acceptable to both sides.  Joint announcements helped to prevent anyone’s playing to the gallery or posturing for effect, publicity tactics which should have no place in negotiations. 

In this instance, however, the Hinsdale High School Teachers Association (HHSTA, the exclusive bargaining representative for teachers, to which over 98% of District #86 teachers belong) did not contribute to the creation or dissemination of this letter, so clearly, the new board majority has not accepted the need to issue joint press releases only.  There wasn’t anything shockingly revealing in the statements made in this letter, but there were a couple of concerns I would have, were I on the teachers’ negotiations team.

First, the letter referenced a multi-year deal, which is never a certainty until the entire contract has been finalized.  Yes, most recent deals between District #86 and the HHSTA have been for three or four years, but stating that this contract will be for more than one year before it’s been ratified by both sides indicates this board is willing to provide specific details about what’s going on, or at the very least, what its position is.  It’s not a huge deal, but as a teacher representative, I would be unhappy with the board for making public statements like this about negotiations without any input from the HHSTA.

Second, and more importantly for reaching a reasonable contract that both sides can endorse without any labor unrest next August/September, was the comment that the contract needed to “be fair to all

District 86 stakeholders, including teachers, parents, students, and all community residents, including taxpayers who do not currently have students enrolled in our schools.” There were also references in the letter to “taxpayer resources,” “sustainable spending,” and “the best interests of ALL District 86 stakeholders” (stress on “all” used in the letter, not added).  For those of you not fluent in school board code, all those comments reflect that this board’s overriding objective will be, despite significant reserves and an enviable balance sheet, limiting spending.  To put that in perspective, you have to remember that only last year the teachers agreed to base salary increases of 0% for 2012-13 and 1.38% for 2013-14.

Three of the four in the majority were ready to push this letter through, despite not having shared its contents with the minority board members prior to reading it aloud during a public meeting.  Casini, to his credit, did insist that discussion and changes be permitted, leading to one revision:  The “including taxpayers who do not currently have students enrolled in our schools” was deleted as being redundant, given that “community residents” already encompassed that sub-group of residents.  Yet even this small deletion was resisted by Manley and Corcoran who both felt it was important to include that emphasis. (You can see the video of this meeting here.)

Then came Corcoran’s letter.  It could be that the board (at least a 4-3 majority) authorized this press release, but the only mention of the school board comes from Corcoran when he identifies himself as “vice-president of the Hinsdale Township High School District 86 Board of Education and chairman of its Finance Committee.” He encourages the community to visit the board of education’s “Transparency” site to see how teacher salaries have fared over the last ten years. 

Of all the issues on which he could have used his position as board member to advocate, learning more about teacher salaries was his choice.  The $110,000 average salary/benefits price tag per teacher is featured in his letter, and he points out that teacher pay is the largest single cost in District 86’s budget at some $45,000,000 for this school year.  Those two numbers are facts, but he then manipulates perceptions by stating that the $45,000,000 “comprises more than 70 percent of educational expenses,” without explaining that he is using only a segment of total budgeted expenses to arrive at that number.  The entire budget for District #86 this fiscal year is almost $81,000,000, making the teacher cost more like 56% of total expenditures—and in a school district, aren’t all expenses essentially “educational”? (What Corcoran was using for his percentage was the Education Fund, which doesn’t include an additional $11,000,000 of expenses for things like building maintenance and transportation.  He also didn’t encourage anyone to examine the over $20,000,000 the board has in reserves, its savings account after all expenses have been paid.)

Some of you are probably getting frustrated with this minute analysis of what appear to be two innocuous letters which merely inform the community and with which no reasonable person should disagree, but bear with me a paragraph or two longer.  The clear message I take from these letters as a teacher advocate and ex-negotiator is that this board will be extremely inflexible about salary increases or any monetary increases the teachers might propose.  Despite the lip service paid to “respecting and appreciating” District #86 teachers in the letters, no one should leap to the conclusion that this appreciation or respect will result in salaries commensurate with the real worth of those teachers.  And no mention is made of the fiscal restraint teachers showed in accepting base salary increases some 3% less than inflation for the last two years. 

Another key issue which Corcoran ignores in his analysis of salaries over the years is the value to the district of experienced and highly educated teachers.  The “transparency” charts Corcoran references in his letter show the increases in average teacher salaries exceeding inflation for most years, leading readers to the conclusion Corcoran wants, which is that District #86 teachers don’t merit a raise (or much of one) in the new contract.  Instead of raising the legitimate issues of how much a teacher’s attaining a Master’s degree (for which teachers pay themselves) is worth on the salary schedule, or how much and for how long experience should be rewarded (“experience” in this sense means steps on the salary schedule which grant increases for each year taught, up to twenty years); the charts only show how teacher salary increases have outpaced inflation for most of the last ten years.  But should the district value experience and additional education?  Does a teacher who has taught for ten years and earned a Master’s degree deserve a raise that outpaces inflation?  Can District #86 continue to attract the highest quality teaching candidates if its salaries are not competitive or better than surrounding schools?  My answers would be Yes, Yes, and No; but I could see how others would want to debate those issues, which could lead to discussions that might create better understanding all around.

But, apparently, Corcoran believes he has already resolved those issues.  Through a Freedom of Information Act request, Patch commentator Sue Pircon obtained an email Corcoran sent to another community member (you can see both the article and Pircon’s comment here) in which Corcoran wrote, "As a person elected by the taxpayers, I hope you understand your duty and to advocate for only 2 parties. The student and the taxpayers. With the excellent work conditions and benefits teachers realized in District 86, the salary levels would be lowered substantially by market forces. Our salary and benefits should be lower than other districts due to the great parents and great students and excellent work environment/conditions - not to mention the prestige our teachers enjoy in the education community. There are large numbers of unemployed and highly qualified teachers, so it should be obvious to anyone that we should not be paying above market wages with taxpayer's hard earned money."  In other words, it’s such a privilege to work in District #86, teachers here should be paid less than other teachers.  And if District #86 teachers don’t agree with that view, there are plenty of other teachers who could be hired to replace them.

The demeaning attitude of that email toward the same teachers Corcoran supposedly appreciates and respects should offend District #86 residents and send shivers down the spines of its teachers.  And if that mindset continues throughout the current contract negotiations, District #86 could be headed in the following directions:

In the first scenario, teachers confront this unacceptable attitude; the board holds firm; negotiations slow to a crawl, tensions increase through various demonstrations and press releases; talks break off; teachers go on strike some time in the fall; and the relationships among teachers, students, parents, the board, and community members are poisoned for the next decade as everybody chooses sides in a labor/management war. 

Another possibility is that the HHSTA caves to the tactics of this board majority, the teachers accept what they consider to be an unfair contract, teachers young and ambitious enough to recognize this injustice find jobs in better districts, District #86 continues its slide in being able to hire the best people, and the education of the students suffers.  That process has already occurred at the administrative level where at least five high-level administrators, including both high schools’ principals and the superintendent, have left to find other districts for which to work.  And the replacements for those departed administrators continues a recent trend (which began before the new board majority took over) of outside hires being given promotions to new jobs.  In years past, District #86 had the luxury of promoting people who had extensive experience in the district or of hiring outsiders with many years of experience in the same job from another district.  Check the press releases for all recent administrative hires (you can find them here), and you’ll find that all have little experience in their current positions or in District #86—for example, a high school assistant principal from Naperville being hired as Central’s principal or a principal from an Oakbrook junior high school with 150 kids soon to be in charge of South’s almost 2,000 students.     

Neither of those scenarios is in the best interests of the students, parents, teachers, and community members of District #86 (and yes, that does include “taxpayers who do not currently have students enrolled in our schools” since all home owners have a stake in quality schools; that is one of the most important factors in homes maintaining or increasing their property values).  And the Hinsdale High School Teachers Association knows this.  The HHSTA has begun to prepare for this negotiations session by establishing a Facebook page (which can be found at https://www.facebook.com/hhsta.org). 

The HHSTA recognizes that the community needs to be aware of what’s going on in the district before things get out of hand and that thus far the board has shown little inclination to cooperate with its teachers, save talking about its appreciation and respect for them while trying to affect public opinion about their salaries. I would encourage anyone concerned that the uncompromising views of the current board majority might negatively impact the high quality of education in District #86 to stay informed about what’s happening through the HHSTA’s page, and to let school board members know that the money saved through a levy freeze and the desire to increase an already significant surplus/reserve (see this for the specific numbers) isn’t enough to justify going to war with teachers and hurting the schools. 

Damage has already been done—teachers with whom I still have contact are extremely concerned and distrustful about how negotiations with this school board will go—but what has happened so far will seem trivial compared to the problems that could arise over the next six months.  The majority on the District #86 school board is already trying to manipulate public opinion through its “open” letters; let’s hope everyone will consider all sides of this situation before accepting Manley and Corcoran’s spin.  

For more on the how school boards function and ways to insure quality board members, see James Crandell’s ebook Snowflake Schools, exerpts of which can be found at http://www.snowflake-schools.com/.